MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399164402 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sm54d

Attentional Contributions to the Memorability Benefit in Visual Working Memory

2024· preprint· en· W4399164402 on OpenAlexaff
Greer Gillies, Jonathan S. Cant, Keisuke Fukuda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PsychologyWorking memoryCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some visual stimuli are consistently better remembered than others across individuals, due to variations in memorability (the stimulus-intrinsic property that determines ease of encoding into visual long-term memory (VLTM)). We found that this memorability benefit also exists in visual working memory (VWM). Within VWM, memorable stimuli enjoy a dual benefit: 1) they are stored more efficiently in VWM and 2) are also more competitive at attracting VWM resources than forgettable stimuli. In this study, we examined the hypothesis that this competitive advantage of memorable stimuli reflects preferential allocation of spatial attention toward memorable stimuli. To test this, we had participants perform a face VWM task where they had to remember an array composed of both memorable and forgettable faces. Critically, on 23% of trials, letters replaced the face stimuli at differing stimulus onset asynchronies. Participants then reported the letters they remembered seeing. This enabled us to examine where spatial attention was allocated at different times during viewing. We found that participants did not report more letters superimposed on memorable faces than on forgettable faces until 450ms after the onset of face stimuli, suggesting that spatial attention is not immediately biased toward memorable stimuli. Next, we examined when the competitive benefit emerged in relation to changes in attentional allocation. Does the competitive benefit lead to differences in attentional allocation or is attention responsible for the competitive benefit? We had participants perform the same VWM task and we manipulated the stimulus duration. We found that the competitive benefit was not present until after there were differences in attentional allocation. We speculate that this may be due to memory guided attention where memorable stimuli are efficiently encoded into VWM, which then attracts attentional resources ultimately leading to the competitive benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→