Abstract:We have a good understanding of how well people can remember a relevant feature of an attended object (e.g. color of a color patch; Bays et al., 2009), but we know relatively little about how an attended object's task irrelevant features are encoded (e.g. shape of a color patch). Previous research suggests that we have some categorical knowledge of irrelevant features (Eitam et al., 2013), but knowing the precision with which this information is stored is essential for understanding the capacity of working memory. To better understand the memory of irrelevant features, we presented participants with a colored arrow, and for the first 25 trials, consistently asked participants about its color using a color wheel. On trial 26, we cued participants to recall the direction of the arrow in a surprise test (i.e. the critical trial). To determine how participants are responding on the critical trial, we compared the log likelihood of different combinations of von Mises distributions' fit to the behavioral data, with the distributions varying from precise to guessing (i.e. uniform distribution). From this comparison process, we find that some participants remember the irrelevant information imprecisely, relative to a relevant feature response distribution, while other participants are simply guessing. Importantly, after the surprise test, all participants could easily recall the arrow's direction but this improvement in direction memory came at a significant cost in precision for color memory. We attribute these findings to varying levels of attention to different features during memory encoding. To understand how these tradeoffs occur at a mechanistic level, we simulated featural attention in the Binding Pool model of visual Working Memory (Swan & Wyble 2014) according to findings from monkey neurophysiology (McAdams et al., 1999). The model accurately simulates imprecise retrieval for irrelevant features and the cost of adding features to a memory. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015.

assessPool: a fexible pipeline for population genomic analyses of pooled sequencing data

[Construction of eukaryotic expression vector encoding ACRBP and its expression in hepatocarcinoma cells].

Estimating hierarchical F–statistics from Pool–Seq data

grenedalf: population genetic statistics for the next generation of pool sequencing

Barriers to effective treatment of pediatric solid tumors in middle‐income countries: Can we make sense of the spectrum of nonbiologic factors that influence outcomes?

Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics

Estimation of Haplotypes Based on DNA Pooling

Robust and cost-efficient single-cell sequencing through combinatorial pooling

snpQT: flexible, reproducible, and comprehensive quality control and imputation of genomic data

Fine Population Structure Analysis Method for Genomes of Many

Investigation of rare and low-frequency variants using high-throughput sequencing with pooled DNA samples

Scalepopgen: bioinformatics workflow resources implemented in Nextflow for comprehensive population genomic analyses

PISCES: a package for rapid quantitation and quality control of large scale mRNA-seq datasets

A Pipeline and Recommendations for Population and Individual Diagnostic SNP Selection in Non‐Model Species

Measuring the memory quality of a task irrelevant feature of an attended object.

Biases and errors on allele frequency estimation and disease association tests of next-generation sequencing of pooled samples.

Informed Pooled Testing with Quantitative Assays

Can Cortical Silent Period and Motor Threshold Be Practical Parameters in the Comparison of Patients with Generalized Epilepsy and Patients with Psychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures?

Population assignment from genotype likelihoods for low‐coverage whole‐genome sequencing data

Ensemblex: an accuracy-weighted ensemble genetic demultiplexing framework for population-scale scRNAseq sample pooling

PEAS V1.0: a Package for Elementary Analysis of SNP Data