Is the Contralateral Delay Activity (CDA) a robust neural correlate for Visual Working Memory (VWM) tasks? A reproducibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual working memory (VWM) allows us to actively store, update, and manipulate visual information surrounding us. While the underlying neural mechanisms of VWM remain unclear, contralateral delay activity (CDA), a sustained negativity over the hemisphere contralateral to the positions of visual items to be remembered, is often used to study VWM. To investigate if the CDA is a robust neural correlate for VWM tasks, we reproduced eight CDA-related studies with a publicly accessible EEG data set. We used the raw EEG data from these eight studies and analyzed all of them with the same basic pipeline to extract CDA. We were able to reproduce the results from all the studies and show that with a basic automated EEG pipeline we can extract a clear CDA signal. We share insights from the trends observed across the studies and raise some questions about the CDA decay and the CDA during the recall phase, which surprisingly, none of the eight studies did address. Finally, we also provide reproducibility recommendations based on our experience and challenges in reproducing these studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".