Neural evidence of deprioritizing to-be-forgotten information in visual working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although evidence supports the effective use of a cue to forget an encoded stimulus, the mechanisms of this forgetting are not well understood. Evidence from item-method directed forgetting in long-term memory reveals greater prefrontal and parietal activation for information that is cued to be forgotten. Activation in those brain regions is typically associated with increased effort and cognitive control. Method: To test the mechanism of directed forgetting in visual working memory, we used stimuli that rely on distinct brain regions such as faces and buildings and varied memory stability. Participants completed a directed forgetting task with faces and buildings, and memory stability was manipulated by presenting some stimuli repeatedly throughout the study, and other stimuli were only presented once. Results and discussion: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) results from the parahippocampal place area suggest that to-be-remembered buildings elicit higher activation than to-be-forgotten buildings. In addition, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation changed throughout the trial period, possibly suggesting that the cue led to information being dropped from visual working memory, or through a shift in attention, as occurs with the retro-cue paradigm. Several explanations for these results are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
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".