Short-term consolidation of information for episodic memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several lines of evidence from rapid serial visual presentation, attentional blink, and dual-task interference phenomena propose that human beings have a significant limitation on the short-term consolidation process. Short-term consolidation is transferring early representations to more durable forms of memory. Although previous research has shown that masks presented after targets interrupt the consolidation process of information, there is not enough evidence for the role of attention in consolidation for episodic memory. One electrophysiological and five behavioral experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of attention and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between targets and masks on episodic memory. Masks were presented after targets with varying SOAs. The participants in the divided attention condition but not the ones in the full attention condition performed the attention-demanding secondary task after the presentation of the masks. The results showed that reducing SOA between targets and masks caused an impairment in memory performance for divided attention but not for full attention, providing evidence for the necessity of attention for the short-term consolidation process. Electrophysiological results demonstrated that this impairment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".