Predictability changes what we remember in familiar temporal contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The human brain constantly anticipates the future based on memories of the past. Encountering a familiar situation reactivates memory of previous encounters which can trigger a prediction of what comes next to facilitate responsiveness. However, a prediction error can lead to pruning of the offending memory, a process that weakens its representation in the brain and leads to forgetting. Our goal in this study was to evaluate whether memories are spared from pruning in situations that allow for more abstract yet reliable predictions. We hypothesized that when the category, but not the identity, of a new stimulus can be anticipated, this will reduce pruning of existing memories and also reduce encoding of the specifics of new memories. Participants viewed a sequence of objects, some of which reappeared multiple times (“cues”), followed always by novel items. Half of the cues were followed by new items from different (unpredictable) categories, while others were followed by new items from a single (predictable) category. Pattern classification of fMRI data was used to identify category-specific predictions after each cue. Pruning was observed only in unpredictable contexts, while encoding of new items suffered more in predictable contexts. These findings demonstrate that how episodic memories are updated is influenced by the reliability of abstract-level predictions in familiar contexts.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".