Remembering more than you can say: Re-examining “amnesia” of attended attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attribute amnesia (AA) describes a phenomenon whereby observers fail a surprise memory test which asks them to report an attribute they had just attended and used to fulfil a task goal. This finding has cast doubt on the prominent theory that attention results in encoding into working memory (WM), to which two competing explanations have been proposed: (1) task demands dictate whether attended information is encoded into WM, and (2) attended information is encoded in a weak state that does not survive the demands of the surprise memory test. To address this debate our study circumvented the limitations of a surprise memory test by embedding a second search task within a typical color-based AA search task. The search task was modified so that the attended attribute would reappear in the second search as either the target, a distractor, or not at all. Critically, our results support encoding of the attended attribute in WM though to a weaker extent than the attribute that is required for report. A second experiment confirmed that WM encoding only occurs for the attended attribute, though distractor attributes produce a bias consistent with negative priming. Our data provide novel support for a theory of memory consolidation that links the strength of a memory's representation with expectations for how it will be used in a task. Implications for the utility of this procedure in future investigations previously limited by single trial data (i.e., surprise question methodology) are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".