Differential reliance on sensory reinstatement and internally transformed representation during vivid retrieval of visual and auditory episodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Auditory memory is considered less detailed yet more durable than visual memory, implying a modality-specific memory retrieval process. We used fMRI and multivoxel pattern analyses to examine how 25 participants encoded and retrieved naturalistic sounds and videos. Both auditory and visual targets reinstated item-specific fine activation patterns in the association cortex during retrieval, and reinstatement strength correlates with subjective memory vividness. However, auditory episodes showed a markedly larger reliance on internally constructed representations than visual episodes, quantified by retrieval-retrieval similarity after removing encoding traces. Sensory reinstatement correlated more to the (detail-related) posterior hippocampus, while internal representations also correlated to the (gist-related) anterior hippocampus. Furthermore, temporal voice areas preserved gist-level (human versus non-human) information from encoding to retrieval, whereas fusiform face representations degraded. These findings reveal that auditory and visual memories share a common sensory reinstatement mechanism, but differ in the neural mechanism that supports retrieval, with participants favouring gist over perceptual details during auditory memory 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".