Ready for Action! When the Brain Learns, Yet Memory-Guided Behavior Does Not Follow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to use memory for action is critical for everyday life, such as for remembering which alarm signals danger. Although research suggests that memory for past events influences how we respond to events in the present, the magnitude of behavioral benefit varies and can even be absent. How is it that the brain learns, yet the learning does not influence memory-guided action? In this thesis, I show that 1) not all learned memory representations are usable for behavior and 2) those that are usable for behavior are supported by distinct neural mechanisms during retrieval. Study 1 demonstrates that learning and behavioral expression of learning are separable and differentially affected by attention. Studies 2 and 3 provide further evidence that memory-guided behavior is supported by distinct neural substrates. Specifically, Study 1 leveraged high-density electroencephalography (EEG) and revealed a striking brain-behavior dissociation. Learning was observed neurally in two attention conditions. However, only one condition, in which attention was directed to the task-relevant object at learning, led to a memory-guided behavioral benefit at retrieval. Further, these behaviorally accessible memories were accompanied by an implicit neural memory component that correlated with the degree of response preparation, but not with response execution. In Study 2, I conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis and demonstrated that fronto-parietal attention and control networks are critical for memory-guided behavior. Study 3 empirically validated this working model, using time-frequency source localization. Specifically, I showed that, in addition to fronto-parietal networks, memory-guided behavior is accompanied by anterior temporal lobe activity that scales with the magnitude of behavioral benefit. Together, the results of the presented studies suggest that 1) attention at learning affects memory accessibility and guided behavior at retrieval and 2) accessible memories that guide behavior are supported by distinct temporal and fronto-parietal networks and implicit neural memory that triggers response preparation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".