Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity of our visual memory is enormous. As a result, individual memories overlap with one another, but we are still able to distinguish between them effectively. This may be because the degree of overlap is dynamic, and changes with learning: Memories differentiate when initial overlap is moderate and integrate when initial overlap is high. There is considerable neural evidence for this pattern, consistent with the non-monotonic plasticity hypothesis (NMPH). However, it has been difficult to curate a stimulus set that captures the entire range of possible overlap, and to establish a behavioural task sensitive to these representational shifts. Here, we fill this gap in our understanding of neuroplasticity by using model-based stimulus synthesis to create pairs of abstract visual stimuli that sample the entire range of possible feature overlap, and using a novel task to evaluate shifts in visual memory. During encoding, we explored impacts of task demands by embedding pairs into different learning tasks. We generated image pairs, each with one of five prescribed similarity levels, that were determined by the correlation among feature vectors extracted from a pretrained convolutional neural network. The pairs were embedded into either an Episodic condition, where associations are explicitly learned, or a Statistical condition, where associations are implicitly learned via temporal contiguity. Shifts in overlap were measured using a four-alternative forced choice task, where participants were cued with an image, and all response options were altered versions of its pairmate which were either more or less similar to the cue. Selecting more similar responses suggests integration while less similar responses indicate differentiation. When episodically encoded, visually overlapping memories followed an NMPH-consistent pattern, indicating that behaviour can index representational shifts. Interestingly, integration may be attenuated at the highest similarity level, so follow-ups are underway to further characterize the shape of the learning function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".