Multiple-object Tracking as a Tool for Parametrically Modulating Memory Reactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Converging evidence supports the "nonmonotonic plasticity" hypothesis, which states that although complete retrieval may strengthen memories, partial retrieval weakens them. Yet, the classic experimental paradigms used to study effects of partial retrieval are not ideally suited to doing so, because they lack the parametric control needed to ensure that the memory is activated to the appropriate degree (i.e., that there is some retrieval but not enough to cause memory strengthening). Here, we present a novel procedure designed to accommodate this need. After participants learned a list of word-scene associates, they completed a cued mental visualization task that was combined with a multiple-object tracking (MOT) procedure, which we selected for its ability to interfere with mental visualization in a parametrically adjustable way (by varying the number of MOT targets). We also used fMRI data to successfully train an "associative recall" classifier for use in this task: This classifier revealed greater memory reactivation during trials in which associative memories were cued while participants tracked one, rather than five, MOT targets. However, the classifier was insensitive to task difficulty when recall was not taking place, suggesting that it had indeed tracked memory reactivation rather than task difficulty per se. Consistent with the classifier findings, participants' introspective ratings of visualization vividness were modulated by MOT task difficulty. In addition, we observed reduced classifier output and slowing of responses in a postreactivation memory test, consistent with the hypothesis that partial reactivation, induced by MOT, weakened memory. These results serve as a "proof of concept" that MOT can be used to parametrically modulate memory retrieval-a property that may prove useful in future investigation of partial retrieval effects, for example, in closed-loop experiments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".