Functional and anatomical characterization of visual working memory coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies using a variety of experimental methods have shown evidence of neural activity encoding visual working memory (VWM) representations across a wide range of cortical areas. This has led to a major controversy regarding which areas directly subserve VWM maintenance, and what role each area plays. Here we describe functional and anatomical properties of the neuronal code for VWM based on our results from neurophysiological studies in monkeys, and propose several underlying principles of brain organization that may help resolve such controversy: (i) Sustained activity encoding VWM emerges in visual association areas immediately downstream from early visual cortex, and is also present in executive areas such as the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC). (ii) Early visual areas exclusively encode sensory inputs; however, their synaptic activity may be modulated by higher-level areas encoding VWM, putatively influencing sensory processing. (iii) The cortical architecture of areas subserving VWM maintenance is characterized by more excitatory and less inhibitory neurons than that of areas exclusively subserving sensory processing. (iv) Population representation strength remains relatively stable throughout the memory period, yet the underlying rate code is dynamic. (v) In LPFC, coding functions vary widely across neurons, with some neurons encoding perceived and memorized visual features to similar degrees and others preferentially or exclusively encoding either one. Our results suggest that VWM coding is neither a ubiquitous property across cortical areas nor an exclusive property of high-level executive areas alone; instead, it is carried out by a finite network of areas/neurons with specialized functional and anatomical properties. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".