A systematic review and meta‐analysis of memory‐guided attention: Frontal and parietal activation suggests involvement of fronto‐parietal networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior knowledge and long-term memory can guide our attention to facilitate search for and detection of subtle targets embedded in a complex scene. A number of neuropsychological and experimental studies have investigated this effect, yet results in the field remain mixed, as there is a lack of consensus regarding the neural correlates thought to support memory-guided attention. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify a common set of brain structures involved in memory-guided attention. Statistical analyses were computed on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that presented participants with a task that required them to detect a target or a change embedded in repeated and novel complex visual displays. After a systematic search, 10 fMRI studies met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. The results yielded four significant clusters. Activity in right inferior parietal (Brodmann area [BA] 9) and right superior parietal (BA 7) lobes suggests involvement of a fronto-parietal attention network, while activity in left mid-cingulate cortex (BA 23) and right middle frontal gyrus (BA 10) suggests involvement of a fronto-parietal control network. These findings are consistent with the notion that fronto-parietal circuits are important for interfacing retrieved memories with attentional systems to guide search. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Memory Psychology > Learning Psychology > Attention.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it