Visual Recognition Memory of Scenes Is Driven by Categorical, Not Sensory, Visual Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When we perceive a scene, our brain processes various types of visual information simultaneously, ranging from sensory features, such as line orientations and colors, to categorical features, such as objects and their arrangements. Whereas the role of sensory and categorical visual representations in predicting subsequent memory has been studied using isolated objects, their impact on memory for complex scenes remains largely unknown. To address this gap, we conducted an fMRI study in which female and male participants encoded pictures of familiar scenes (e.g., an airport picture) and later recalled them, while rating the vividness of their visual recall. Outside the scanner, participants had to distinguish each seen scene from three similar lures (e.g., three airport pictures). We modeled the sensory and categorical visual features of multiple scenes using both early and late layers of a deep convolutional neural network. Then, we applied representational similarity analysis to determine which brain regions represented stimuli in accordance with the sensory and categorical models. We found that categorical, but not sensory, representations predicted subsequent memory. In line with the previous result, only for the categorical model, the average recognition performance of each scene exhibited a positive correlation with the average visual dissimilarity between the item in question and its respective lures. These results strongly suggest that even in memory tests that ostensibly rely solely on visual cues (such as forced-choice visual recognition with similar distractors), memory decisions for scenes may be primarily influenced by categorical rather than sensory representations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".