The interdependence of the memory reactivation of items and task rules
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working memory (WM) is critical for goal-directed behavior. The relationship between the storage of task-relevant items (declarative WM) and task rules (procedural WM) has been under debate, as some studies argue that they are independent while others propose they are interdependent. We aimed to test these rival accounts by investigating the effects of reactivating task rules on the reactivation of task-relevant items. For this, we used contralateral delay activity (CDA), a well-studied EEG index of WM load, to track WM storage of task-relevant items. Participants (N = 34) were given a visual item to be stored for a recognition or a size comparison task. Each item was repeated across six trials to enable its handoff to LTM. On some item repetitions, the task rule changed. These trials allowed testing the effect of updating task rules on the reactivation of task-relevant items. First, we found a significant CDA for novel items, which confirms that novel items are stored in WM. Second, the CDA amplitude decreased with target repetitions suggesting the handoff of WM items to LTM. Importantly, CDA was larger on task-switch compared to task-repeat trials. This result suggests that reactivation of task rules triggers the reactivation of task-relevant items in WM. By demonstrating that WM reactivation of LTM is interdependent for task rules and task-relevant items, this study informs our understanding of visual WM and its interplay with LTM.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it