ArticleNature human behaviour2024
Images with harder-to-reconstruct visual representations leave stronger memory traces.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling visual memorability assessment with autoencoders reveals characteristics of memorable images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Sparsity and memory constraints interact with training sequence to bias learning of associative maps.Neuropsychologia · 2026Article
- The temporal and spatial properties of memorability reveal insights into the art creation process.Cognition · 2026Article
- A compressed code for memory discrimination.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Task-relevant representational spaces in human memory traces.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Attentional capture.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Much of what we remember is not because of intentional selection, but simply a by-product of perceiving. This raises a foundational question about the architecture of the mind: how does perception interface with and influence memory? Here, inspired by a classic proposal relating perceptual processing to memory durability, the level-of-processing theory, we present a sparse coding model for compressing feature embeddings of images, and show that the reconstruction residuals from this model predict how well images are encoded into memory. In an open memorability dataset of scene images, we show that reconstruction error not only explains memory accuracy, but also response latencies during retrieval, subsuming, in the latter case, all of the variance explained by powerful vision-only models. We also confirm a prediction of this account with 'model-driven psychophysics'. This work establishes reconstruction error as an important signal interfacing perception and memory, possibly through adaptive modulation of perceptual processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38740989What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.