MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955753775 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1820730116

Probing the limits of activity-silent non-conscious working memory

2019· article· en· W2955753775 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Darinka Trübutschek, Sébastien Marti, Henrik Ueberschär, Stanislas Dehaene

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCommissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies AlternativesFondation Roger de SpoelberchCollège de FranceInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleFondation du Collège de France
KeywordsConsciousnessCognitive psychologyNeural activityPsychologyWorking memoryPhenomenonBrain activity and meditationNeural correlates of consciousnessInformation processingNeuroscienceCognitive scienceCognitionElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Our work tackles a current debate regarding working memory (WM). Traditionally, this ability to maintain and manipulate information has been thought to require conscious processing and persistent neural activity. Recent evidence challenges this assumption: Information may be briefly stored without conscious awareness and sustained neural activity. Here, we reconcile these competing views. We recorded brain activity while adults remembered or mentally rotated subjectively visible or invisible stimuli. We showed that the mere short-term storage of information may proceed without consciousness or persistent neural activity. However, manipulating information in WM during rotation required both. Thus, non-conscious, activity-silent maintenance is a genuine phenomenon but should be termed “activity-silent short-term memory”; when using a memory, a reactivation, associated with conscious reportability, is necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207