Conceptual Cues Facilitate Encoding in Visual Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that viewing words with implicit spatial associations can facilitate the processing of information at compatible spatial locations. Like other types of spatial cues, these conceptual cues are thought to produce spatial shifts of attention. If this is the case, viewing words with implicit spatial associations should also facilitate the encoding and retrieval of information from visual working memory. To test whether this is the case, participants viewed a word with an upward (e.g., God, hat), downward (e.g., Devil, boots), or neutral (e.g., table, chair) spatial association, followed by an array of four colored squares. The colors of the squares could be selected from either a set of seven discriminable colors or a continuous color wheel. After a brief retention interval, a probe square was presented at the location of one of the four squares, and participants were asked to identify whether the color of this square was the same as the square that was originally at that location. To ensure that participants processed the central word, they were only asked to complete the visual working memory task when a non-furniture word was presented. Participants were faster at identifying the color of the probe square when it was presented at a compatible spatial location, suggesting that conceptual cues can influence the encoding of information in visual working memory. However, participants were also faster at identifying the color of the probe square when it was presented at a horizontal spatial location, suggesting that processing the central word may have involved lateral shifts of attention. Together, these findings indicate that viewing words with implicit spatial associations can facilitate the encoding of information in visual working memory, and provide further evidence that these conceptual cues may produce spatial shifts of 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".