Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38656279›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Unifying network model links recency and central tendency biases in working memory.

Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta, Claudia Clopath, Athena Akrami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Reward history guides focal attention in whisker somatosensory cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Multiple and Dissociable Effects of Sensory History on Working-Memory Performance.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vezha BoboevaSainsbury Wellcome Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2476-8714
Alberto PezzottaGatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Claudia Clopath *Sainsbury Wellcome Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4507-8648
Athena Akrami *Sainsbury Wellcome Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5711-0903

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N013956/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N019008/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 10.35802/200790Wellcome Trust 219627/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain's ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience - producing short-term sensory history biases - naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution's mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

Indexed as

Memory, Short-TermAnimalsHumansModels, NeurologicalParietal LobeRatscontraction biashumanneural networkneuroscienceposterior parietal cortexratserial biasworking memory

Identifiers

PMID38656279
PMCPMC11042808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.