The neural basis of precise visual short-term memory for complex recognisable objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent evidence suggests that visual short-term memory (VSTM) capacity estimated using simple objects, such as colours and oriented bars, may not generalise well to more naturalistic stimuli. More visual detail can be stored in VSTM when complex, recognisable objects are maintained compared to simple objects. It is not yet known if it is recognisability that enhances memory precision, nor whether maintenance of recognisable objects is achieved with the same network of brain regions supporting maintenance of simple objects. We used a novel stimulus generation method to parametrically warp photographic images along a continuum, allowing separate estimation of the precision of memory representations and the number of items retained. The stimulus generation method was also designed to create unrecognisable, though perceptually matched, stimuli, to investigate the impact of recognisability on VSTM. We adapted the widely-used change detection and continuous report paradigms for use with complex, photographic images. Across three functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments, we demonstrated greater precision for recognisable objects in VSTM compared to unrecognisable objects. This clear behavioural advantage was not the result of recruitment of additional brain regions, or of stronger mean activity within the core network. Representational similarity analysis revealed greater variability across item repetitions in the representations of recognisable, compared to unrecognisable complex objects. We therefore propose that a richer range of neural representations support VSTM for complex recognisable objects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".