How does divided attention hinder different stages of episodic memory retrieval?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Episodic memory retrieval is crucial for survival and can be impaired by divided attention. However, since memory retrieval consists of different stages, divided attention can impair each stage uniquely, leading to retrieval failures. It is important to acknowledge the multistage characteristics of episodic memory retrieval to understand the cognitive mechanisms that mediate the relationship between memory retrieval and divided attention. Here we attempt to unravel the role of divided attention in gating the access to long-term memories through its unique impact on a non-exhaustive list of six stages of a memory retrieval task: processing of retrieval cue, initiating a retrieval mode, searching for the target memory, retrieving, and reactivating the target memory, decision-making, and motor preparation to produce a response. We describe how each stage might be affected by divided attention. To do so, we review not only studies on memory retrieval but also areas that constitute different stages described above given the lack of extensive research that explores the role of attention for each stage. We hope this work will contribute to carefully controlling and manipulating how different stages are affected by attention, which in turn will improve our understanding of the relationship between attention and memory retrieval.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".