Repertoire of timescales in uni – and transmodal regions mediate working memory capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working memory (WM) describes the dynamic process of maintenance and manipulation of information over a certain time delay. Neuronally, WM recruits a distributed network of cortical regions like the visual and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as well as the subcortical hippocampus. How the input dynamics and subsequent neural dynamics impact WM remains unclear though. To answer this question, we combined the analysis of behavioral WM capacity with measuring neural dynamics through task-related power spectrum changes, e.g., median frequency (MF) in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We show that the processing of the input dynamics, e.g., the task structure's specific timescale, leads to changes in the unimodal visual cortex's corresponding timescale which also relates to working memory capacity. While the more transmodal hippocampus relates to working memory capacity through its balance across multiple timescales or frequencies. In conclusion, we here show the relevance of both input dynamics and different neural timescales for WM capacity in uni - and transmodal regions like visual cortex and hippocampus for the subject's WM performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".