Differential working memory function between phonological and visuospatial strategies: a magnetoencephalography study using a same visual task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have reported that, in working memory, the processing of visuospatial information and phonological information have different neural bases. However, in these studies, memory items were presented via different modalities. Therefore, the modality in which the memory items were presented and the strategy for memorizing them were not rigorously distinguished. In the present study, we explored the neural basis of two working memory strategies. Nineteen right-handed young adults memorized seven sequential directions presented visually in a task in which the memory strategy was either visuospatial or phonological (visuospatial/phonological condition). Source amplitudes of theta-band (5–7 Hz) rhythm were estimated from magnetoencephalography during the maintenance period and further analyzed using cluster-based permutation tests. Behavioral results revealed that the accuracy rates showed no significant differences between conditions, while the reaction time in the phonological condition was significantly longer than that in the visuospatial condition. Theta activity in the phonological condition was significantly greater than that in the visuospatial condition, and the cluster in spatio-temporal matrix with p < 5% difference extended to right prefrontal regions in the early maintenance period and right occipito-parietal regions in the late maintenance period. The theta activity results did not indicate strategy-specific neural bases but did reveal the dynamics of executive function required for phonological processing. The functions seemed to move from attention control and inhibition control in the prefrontal region to inhibition of irrelevant information in the occipito-parietal region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".