Neural evidence of switch processes during semantic and phonetic foraging in human memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans may retrieve words from memory by exploring and exploiting in "semantic space" similar to how nonhuman animals forage for resources in physical space. This has been studied using the verbal fluency test (VFT), in which participants generate words belonging to a semantic or phonetic category in a limited time. People produce bursts of related items during VFT, referred to as "clustering" and "switching." The strategic foraging model posits that cognitive search behavior is guided by a monitoring process which detects relevant declines in performance and then triggers the searcher to seek a new patch or cluster in memory after the current patch has been depleted. An alternative body of research proposes that this behavior can be explained by an undirected rather than strategic search process, such as random walks with or without random jumps to new parts of semantic space. This study contributes to this theoretical debate by testing for neural evidence of strategically timed switches during memory search. Thirty participants performed category and letter VFT during functional MRI. Responses were classified as cluster or switch events based on computational metrics of similarity and participant evaluations. Results showed greater hippocampal and posterior cerebellar activation during switching than clustering, even while controlling for interresponse times and linguistic distance. Furthermore, these regions exhibited ramping activity which increased during within-patch search leading up to switches. Findings support the strategic foraging model, clarifying how neural switch processes may guide memory search in a manner akin to foraging in patchy spatial environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".