Slot-like capacity and resource-like coding in a neural model of multiple-item working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past decade, research on the storage limitations of working memory has been dominated by two fundamentally different hypotheses. On the one hand, the contents of working memory may be stored in a limited number of "slots," each with a fixed resolution. On the other hand, any number of items may be stored but with decreasing resolution. These two hypotheses have been invaluable in characterizing the computational structure of working memory, but neither provides a complete account of the available experimental data or speaks to the neural basis of the limitations it characterizes. To address these shortcomings, we simulated a multiple-item working memory task with a cortical network model, the cellular resolution of which allowed us to quantify the coding fidelity of memoranda as a function of memory load, as measured by the discriminability, regularity, and reliability of simulated neural spiking. Our simulations account for a wealth of neural and behavioral data from human and nonhuman primate studies, and they demonstrate that feedback inhibition lowers both capacity and coding fidelity. Because the strength of inhibition scales with the number of items stored by the network, increasing this number progressively lowers fidelity until capacity is reached. Crucially, the model makes specific, testable predictions for neural activity on multiple-item working memory tasks. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Working memory is the ability to keep information in mind and is fundamental to cognition. It is actively debated whether the storage limitations of working memory reflect a small number of storage units (slots) or a decrease in coding resolution as a limited resource is allocated to more items. In a cortical model, we found that slot-like capacity and resource-like neural coding resulted from the same mechanism, offering an integrated explanation for storage limitations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".