Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory researchers traditionally distinguish between two types of transient memory: Sensory memory and short-term (or working) memory. Sensory memories are faithful, veridical records of original events. They represent literal persistence—the same sensory event simply removed in time. Short-term memories are the active, but analyzed, contents of mind—the stuff of conscious awareness. This chapter reviews the major empirical properties of sensory and short-term memory and discusses the various methodologies that are used to study each. Sensory memories—measured through synchrony judgment tasks, backward masking techniques, or by the Sperling partial report task—last for only a few hundred milliseconds and may accrue as a simple by-product of neural dynamics. Short-term memories—measured primarily through the Brown-Peterson distractor task and immediate serial recall—probably last for a second or two but can be maintained indefinitely through rehearsal. Traditional accounts of short-term storage—e.g., the working memory model—have come under attack in recent years. Increasingly, researchers are concluding that remembering over the short-term is cue-driven, much like long-term memory, and that simple notions of rehearsal and decay are unlikely to explain the particulars of short-term forgetting. Keywords: sensory memory; short-term memory; working memory; decay; interference; temporal distinctiveness; retrieval
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".