Modulating the Use of Multiple Memory Systems in Value-based Decisions with Contextual Novelty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With multiple learning and memory systems at its disposal, the human brain can represent the past in many ways, from extracting regularities across similar experiences (incremental learning) to storing rich, idiosyncratic details of individual events (episodic memory). The unique information carried by these neurologically distinct forms of memory can bias our behavior in different directions, raising crucial questions about how these memory systems interact to guide choice and the factors that cause one to dominate. Here, we devised a new approach to estimate how decisions are independently influenced by episodic memories and incremental learning. Furthermore, we identified a biologically motivated factor that biases the use of different memory types-the detection of novelty versus familiarity. Consistent with computational models of cholinergic memory modulation, we find that choices are more influenced by episodic memories following the recognition of an unrelated familiar image but more influenced by incrementally learned values after the detection of a novel image. Together this work provides a new behavioral tool enabling the disambiguation of key memory behaviors thought to be supported by distinct neural systems while also identifying a theoretically important and broadly applicable manipulation to bias the arbitration between these two sources of memories.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".