MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3119022627 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244822

Embodied working memory during ongoing input streams

2021· article· en· W3119022627 on OpenAlexafffund
Nareg Berberian, Matt Ross, Sylvain Chartier

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorking memoryEmbodied cognitionSensory systemComputer scienceNeuroscienceCognitionSensory memoryContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Stimulus (psychology)Sensory substitutionCognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory stimuli endow animals with the ability to generate an internal representation. This representation can be maintained for a certain duration in the absence of previously elicited inputs. The reliance on an internal representation rather than purely on the basis of external stimuli is a hallmark feature of higher-order functions such as working memory. Patterns of neural activity produced in response to sensory inputs can continue long after the disappearance of previous inputs. Experimental and theoretical studies have largely invested in understanding how animals faithfully maintain sensory representations during ongoing reverberations of neural activity. However, these studies have focused on preassigned protocols of stimulus presentation, leaving out by default the possibility of exploring how the content of working memory interacts with ongoing input streams. Here, we study working memory using a network of spiking neurons with dynamic synapses subject to short-term and long-term synaptic plasticity. The formal model is embodied in a physical robot as a companion approach under which neuronal activity is directly linked to motor output. The artificial agent is used as a methodological tool for studying the formation of working memory capacity. To this end, we devise a keyboard listening framework to delineate the context under which working memory content is (1) refined, (2) overwritten or (3) resisted by ongoing new input streams. Ultimately, this study takes a neurorobotic perspective to resurface the long-standing implication of working memory in flexible cognition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→