The effect of memory load on object reconstruction: Insights from an online mouse-tracking task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why can’t we remember everything that we experience? Previous work in the domain of object memory has suggested that our ability to resolve interference between relevant and irrelevant object features may limit how much we can remember at any given moment. Here, we developed an online mouse-tracking task to study how memory load influences object reconstruction, testing participants synchronously over virtual conference calls. We first tested up to 18 participants concurrently, replicating memory findings from a condition where participants were tested individually. Next, we examined how memory load influenced mouse trajectories as participants reconstructed target objects. We found interference between the contents of working memory and what was perceived during object reconstruction, an effect that interacted with visual similarity and memory load. Furthermore, we found interference from previously studied but currently irrelevant objects, providing evidence of object-to-location binding errors. At the greatest memory load, participants were nearly three times more likely to move their mouse cursor over previously studied non-target objects, an effect observed primarily during object reconstruction rather than in the period before the final response. As evidence of the dynamic interplay between working memory and perception, these results show that object reconstruction behavior may be altered by: (i) interference between what is represented in mind and what is currently being viewed, and (ii) interference from previously studied but currently irrelevant information. Finally, we discuss how mouse-tracking can provide a rich characterization of participant behavior at millisecond temporal resolution, enormously increasing power in cognitive psychology experiments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".