Integration of memory and sensory information in skilled sequence production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sequential movements rely on two information sources: external sensory cues and internal memory representations. Although often both sources jointly drive sequential behavior, previous research has primarily examined them in isolation. To address this, we trained participants to perform sequences of rapid finger presses in response to numerical cues. Sensory influence was measured by varying the number of visible cues, and memory influence by comparing repeating and random sequences. Early in learning, participants integrated sensory and memory information: repeating sequences were performed more quickly when more cues were visible. After learning, when repeating sequences were predictable with certainty, participants relied solely on memory and ignored sensory cues. However, when this certainty was manipulated by introducing occasional violations within repeating sequences, participants reverted to integrating memory with sensory cues. We propose a computational model that successfully predicted both speed and accuracy of individual presses. Critically, this model relied on the assumption that multiple movements are planned independently of each other. This independence assumption was then validated by examining response patterns to isolated violations in repeating sequences. Finally, we provide evidence into how sequence memories can be flexibly deactivated and reactivated in response to these violations. Together, these results reveal how brain dynamically integrates sensory and memory information to produce sequences of movements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".