On the manifestations of memory in visual search
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence is presented supporting the thesis that performance in visual search tasks is affected by the contribution of memory processes. Three levels of analysis, corresponding to the various time scales present in a typical search experiment, are discussed. Perceptual learning involves the task and stimulus specific improvement seen across blocks of training. Trial-to-trial priming has an influence which extends over 5-8 trials and lasts on the order of 30 s. Within-trial tagging prevents the re-inspection of already attended (or fixated) items. Also at the within-trial level of analysis, parallel accumulation of evidence for target presence/absence or target location inherently involves memory mechanisms. Organizing the various phenomena in this way makes it apparent that the various mechanisms may interact in a causal way. Within-trial tagging may contribute to priming which may contribute to perceptual learning. Recent proposals that visual search is memoryless (amnesic) are discussed and dismissed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it