Developmental refinements to neural attentional state during semantic memory retrieval through adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that attention undergoes protracted development, little is known about how it may support memory refinements in childhood and adolescence. Here, we asked whether people differentially focus their attention on semantic or perceptual information over development during memory retrieval. First, we trained a multivoxel classifier to characterize whole-brain neural patterns reflecting semantic versus perceptual attention in a cued attention task. We then used this classifier to quantify how attention varied in a separate dataset in which children, adolescents, and adults retrieved autobiographical, semantic, and episodic memories. All age groups demonstrated a semantic attentional bias during memory retrieval, with significant age differences in this bias during the semantic task. Trials began with a preparatory picture cue followed by a retrieval question, which allowed us to ask whether attentional biases varied by trial period. Adults showed a semantic bias earlier during the picture cues, whereas adolescents showed this bias during the question. Adults and adolescents also engaged different brain regions-superior parietal cortex and ventral visual regions, respectively-during preparatory picture cues. Our results demonstrate that retrieval-related attention undergoes refinement beyond childhood. These findings suggest that alongside expanding semantic knowledge, attention-related changes may support the maturation of factual knowledge retrieval.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".