Within-Category Decoding of Information in Different Attentional States in Short-Term Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A long-standing assumption of cognitive neuroscience has been that working memory (WM) is accomplished by sustained, elevated neural activity. More recently, theories of WM have expanded this view by describing different attentional states in WM with differing activation levels. Several studies have used multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) data to study neural activity corresponding to these WM states. Intriguingly, no evidence was found for active neural representations for information held in WM outside the focus of attention ("unattended memory items," UMIs), suggesting that only attended memory items (AMIs) are accompanied by an active trace. However, these results depended on category-level decoding, which lacks sensitivity to neural representations of individual items. Therefore, we employed a WM task in which subjects remembered the directions of motion of two dot arrays, with a retrocue indicating which was relevant for an imminent memory probe (the AMI). This design allowed MVPA decoding of delay-period fMRI signal at the stimulus-item level, affording a more sensitive test of the neural representation of UMIs. Whereas evidence for the AMI was reliably high, evidence for the UMI dropped to baseline, consistent with the notion that different WM attentional states may have qualitatively different mechanisms of retention.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".