Visual working memory models of delayed estimation do not generalize to whole-report tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole-report working memory tasks provide a measure of recall for all stimuli in a trial and afford single-trial analyses that are not possible with single-report delayed estimation tasks. However, most whole-report studies assume that trial stimuli are encoded and reported independently, and they do not consider the relationships between stimuli presented and reported within the same trial. Here, we present the results of two independently conducted whole-report experiments. The first dataset was recorded by Adam, Vogel, and Awh (2017) and required participants to report color and orientation stimuli using a continuous response wheel. We recorded the second dataset, which required participants to report color stimuli using a set of discrete buttons. We found that participants often group their reports by color similarity, contradicting the assumption of independence implicit in most encoding models of working memory. Next, we showed that this behavior was consistent across participants and experiments when reporting color but not orientation, two circular variables often assumed to be equivalent.Finally, we implemented an alternative to independent encoding where stimuli are encoded as a hierarchical Bayesian ensemble and found that this model predicts biases that are not present in either dataset. Our results suggest that assumptions made by both independent and hierarchical ensemble encoding models-which were developed in the context of single-report delayed estimation tasks-do not hold for the whole-report task. This failure to generalize highlights the need to consider variations in task structure when inferring fundamental principles of visual working memory.
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 | 0.019 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".