Slashdot Mirror
Brain's Cache Memory Found
Shipud writes "Electrical activity in a single section of the brain has been linked to very short-term
working memory, as is
reported at Nature. Very short-term working memory capacity is thought to be related to intelligence. In the same way that a larger cache speeds processing time, people with a greater capacity for holding images in their heads are expected to have better reasoning and problem-solving skills. The localization of this ability is a surprising finding, as until now it was believed that STWM was diffused throughout the cortex, rather than localized."
does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve your short-term working memory? Does anyone feel that they've improved their's?
P
It's interesting how we use rudimentary digital computing analogies to explain the workings of our brain. Like in most theories, I suppose one can extend this analogy only to a certain extent. Which, in this case, shouldn't be suprising considering how comlex the brain is...
Interestingly, both groups of researchers were working strictly with visual memory. I wonder whether the working memory used by programmers, mathematicians, etc. will be in the same place, or a different area altogether?
And what about the famous "magic number", 7 +/- 2? These people seem to be offering 4 +1/-2.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There has been plenty of studies showing that people tend to remember things incorrectly. Could this very short term memory be part of the final proof needed to invalidate witness statements in legal cases? Or perhaps they can use the line and dots test on witnesses and see how likely they are to remember something that happens in a glance. If they check high on the test, they might be more likely to be able to remember an incident correct.
Apple built a platform for their ideas, Google built one for everyone's.
I wonder what would happen if they just injected some stem cells around there?
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
Yea.. I'm sorry but the first thing I thought when I saw this article was : "Ok.. so what do I have to take to make this bigger?"
However what I suspect is that while they have found the portion of the brain that helps with problem solving actual intelligence is linked to far more factors than one area
For example someone who has a small "cache" area and can't hold too many images at once may be able to work round this with a greater long term storage capacity which they can draw on.
It's all well and good to be able to cache images and information quickly. doesn't help you if you're outputting onto a 10 meg Hard drive.
Increasing your cache memory is clearly beneficial: it can only decrease access time to memory. Increasing STM, however, isn't necessarily good: if you remember more things simultaneously, your brain likely has to make associations between more things at a time. Whether it can or cannot depends on other parts of the brain.
In fact, it seems likely that cause and effect are reversed: it seems likely that "higher intelligence" probably causes a larger STM rather than the other way around--the size of the STM would adapt to the needs of the rest of the brain rather than the other way around.
It's not too surprising that the brain's short-term visual cache would be closer to the visual cortex. What I would like to know is how closely the visual cache is related to intelligence. Does it need actual visual input, instead of just imagined, and if so... <facetious>do you become marginally dumber when you close your eyes?</facetious>
From reading Synaptic Self, the "general" cache and CPU area would seem to be the prefrontal cortex. It can activate memories to work on (the closer the current emotional state it was recorded in, the better), and hold a few things to work on. Perhaps there are many more specializations yet to be uncovered, but I'm struck at the sheer relative size of brain required to actively think and plan a next move. Considering that even a worm brain can get its owner around, you'd think our capacity for juggling thoughts would be encyclopaedic.
I'd be curious as to what connections this area has to the prefrontal cortex - I've heard of the spots tests before - I don't recall it being related to general intelligence.
Addressing the question of how cache gets spat out to hard drive, as it were, to keep thoughts in slightly longer-term storage, it looks like thoughts have to be put through the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex, where they will slowly get rewired (indexed?) over the course of about two weeks - about the length of memories you can lose under strong electroshock therapy.
So many small functional pieces of the brain; I'm struck by how independent the sections of the brain are, by and large. Large-scale coordination has to go through a secondary 'chemical drip' system, from neuromodulators released by non-connecting nerves throughout the brain. It's that level of coordination required to put your brain to sleep or wake it up, amongst other things.
I'm looking forward to more decoding of the brain's structures - narrowing down specific activities to a small area of the brain like they did is fantastic.
Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers
Does scientific Confirmation-Bias exist in the Hippocampus too?
The peer review of this "OLD" psychological ability to "chunk" information for 7 +-2 episodic memories is not a problem solving based semantic thought process.
What about parallel distributed processing models of the brain, perhaps this irresponsible researcher had a case study that defied all statistics and the 35 years of PET scans, MRI data, and REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY. Note too that the "chunking" ability is not a static number, and has been proven to be a learned skill (go from 5 to 80 chunks with some practice). Note also, that proactive and retroactive memories interfere with long-term memories, suggesting a gold fish's 5-second buffer may outwit this scientist with Adult Attention Deficit Disorder that obviously missed most of the confounding variables including the episodic memory of the university lectures and statistical research.
BTW: Do flash-bulb memories of traumatic events make people smarter? No, this has been proven to actually cause memory deficits. Psychology is for scientists, not a lamer with a bad case of priori and a tainted research bias.
GO BACK TO A GOOD UNIVERSITY AND GET A REAL DEGREE!
YOUR INTERNET DEGREE HOLDS NO WEIGHT HERE!
When people talk about "intelligence" they usually mean something like "being able to grasp two deep concepts and put them together" ... not remember 4 spots of light.
... but I've also seen many of those same types fail when tasked with the above sorts of questions.
Indeed. Intelligent people would be those who are excellent at conceptual blending. List of resources on this page.
Granted, I have seen a correlation between people who are capable of remembering 10 digit codes and intelligence
I'm currently reading Kandel & Squire's Memory.
Having a too-good memory is what you don't want. They relate the case of a hyperretentive memorist from Russia, who had almost supernatural retention skills, but was hopeless at appreciating metaphors, or pattern matching or generalizations. Which are the building blocks of analytical intelligence.
What would be interesting to know is if the brain is able to shift this function to other parts of the brain in case of some kind of brain damage, and what are the consequences of the damage if it is unable to do that.
No expansion modules, sorry. Lucky for you, all you have to do is exercise it, promoting the growth of neural pathways in this area. Try sitting around thinking of very complex images or something. Maybe the old oranges trick -- think of one orange, then think of two, five, ten, thirty, fifty, 100, 1000, a million. If I recall correctly, you can see some interesting results with this -- as you get higher, people begin to group the oranges in order to be able to comprehend them all at once. Usually people see a truck carrying oranges when they reach a million, and a barrel at a thousand. Try viewing as many of them as you can without grouping.
Setting aside the fact that drawing analogies between digital hardware and human wetware is somewhat dodgy... I'd have thought the equivalent of short term memory would run nearer 8GB than 8MB.
I don't know about you, but I'm a 'visual' thinker, and its all pretty much 3D images that come to mind. For example, reference to recent discussion invokes images of the actual conversation, not just the content. OK, human memory is pretty good at eliding details and interpolating from previous experience (analagous to heavy JPEG compression maybe?), but even 10minutes of pottering about the house must equate to a huge 'dataset'.
I think that the 'having too good of a memory' meme is a fallacy propagated by those that want to justify not having good retention.
In my own personal experience, a friend of mine is extraordinarily good at remembering where we have been, spatially, for well over twenty years. When travelling in foreign countries this is a stupidly valuable resource.
I am probably too capable of remembering conversations, it only leads to conflict in personal relationships. But, for those rare cases where I need to pull some quote out of nowhere to argue with someone it is a virtual godsend.
I've heard the 'trapped by too much memory' argument before and I don't subcribe to it except in rare cases where the person has a perseverance issue and is lacking in the intelligence department, of which this whole thread is supposed to be related.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
Is this going to lead to benchmarking people?
That's actually an interesting thought. There are a lot of complaints about whether or not IQ tests are viable; IQ is even usually defined as the ability to do well on IQ tests. If the "performance bottleneck" of the human has been found, it may be possible to develop definitive, or at least useful, tests for actual intelligence.
Our neurons fire at 200 Hz. So if there was really a way to overclock our brains to today's CPU clock frequencies, we'd all become hyperintelligent (and pandimensional :-) beings. But then again, brain cells are 10^7-10^8 times as energy efficient as silicon chips. Yup, 10-100 million. You can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess.
im a programmer and when working on larger projects i cant keep all the details in my head. the solution for me is to write everything down and keep them in lists (workhour-lists, todo-lists, next version features-lists, problem-lists, idea-lists, ...). this alone would not help a lot but i devoloped a system to arrange this lists and usually i find things when im looking for them not through memory but through logical organisation.
... thats what i think is intelligence.
my point is that "the capability your brain-cache" (nonscientifically spoken) is just a factor. how you use it and what you do if it isnt sufficient
Well, one assumes a "hypertentive memorist" is dealing primarily with long-term memory. I interpret this article as dealing with the type of short term memory used in solving an equation, or writing a small code section. It's certainly possibly your HM was deficient in that area.
I think there's a valid point to be made about how much information someone can deal with in those contexts. The one caveat I'd make is whether the person is dealing with text or imagery - AFAIK there's quite a range there.
At any rate, I think it's clear that many intelligent people also have above average long-term memories.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
That method does not work as well as recursive detail...
Think of one orange, now think of that orange in minute detail, focus on the pores, the cut stem, focus on that image, now while focusing on that image focus on the SMELL of that orange, then the feel of it...
the most important part is not getting stuck in 2 or 3 dimensional memory.. but 5 dimensions... you must exercize your memory with all your sensory inputs.
usualkly the people that have a better recall will recognize this trick...
think of a rose.
those of you that can not only see it and it's texture but smell it have the higher processor cache... those of you that can also feel the stem have the most processor cache.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
doesn't that invalidate some patents on CPU caches, like recently mentioned Intergraph's (from their Clipper CPU) patent, which caused significant grief to Intel and AMD ?
Apparently we form all sorts of new brainmatter all the time. So now I kinda wonder... The more Go problems I do (any brainteasers apply); the better I get at problem solving in general. This is definitely something that's been improving sharply since I started playing Go. I was theorizing that the game is just getting me in the habit of thinking ahead, but now I wonder if it isn't helping me grow a better braincache. Fascinating.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
You meant that neuronal oscillation could go as fast as 200 Hz!
Most of your neurons certainly don't fire at a mean rate of 200 Hz. In fact, when you're actively concentration, your EEG readings show brain waves at 30+ Hz. In fact, trains of 200 Hz firings are called 'fast ripples'. That itself gives you a clue that 200 is not the norm.
From the article I found very weak the conclusion that this brain section act like a cache. This can be a multiplexer that connect a processing section the the memory section. Or more simply registers that hold intermediate informations.
All the 3 systems have in common that there are build with memory cells, but there are different in terms of the way the memory are used and the associativity. Registers and caches hold encoded informations; multiplexer don't care of the encoding. registers don't have any associativity between a tag and tne information stored, only cache have that.
All tree systems generate heat and consum power that the brain camera see. Really, I see nothing that assert this is a cache.
Sound like the author want to use high-tech buzz word, without any prof.
Scams in the forms of SAT/ACT tests and IQ tests.
All of these are used to sort people, suposedly people with higher scores on these are somehow smarter, despite obvious instances of people who do not perform according to their 'score'.
Both the Nature article and the posting here on /. are exceedingly misleading (I don't blame the poster... he/she just reported what the Nature article said)
All that the two articles *may* have found is the location of a part of VISUAL working memory. This would be the area that tracks objects through space and binds features that are processed seperately by the visual system (say color and form) into the same object. This is NOT the seat of all intelligence.
There are many different aspects to working memory: people have hypothesized that there is a phonological working memory, one involved in the spelling process, one involved in computing things like syntactic relations, etc. And yes, there is probably such a thing as a general-purpose working memory. All they may have found is the location of the visual-spatial component of working memory. This is a far cry from finding anything that limits one's intelligence, unless you define intelligence as "visual-spatial ability".
In fact, it is quite wrong to even suggest that the visual-spatial working memory is somehow related to intelligence. There are many instances of people with working memory deficits who are able to function quite normally in other domains.
For the sake of brevity I won't go into the finer about the studies themselves (one of the studies used the ERP recording technique, which is *awful* at localization) because the main point is that in and of themselves the studies are fine. It's this conclusion that they've somehow found "the RAM" or the thing that would limit intelligence that's exceedingly problematic.
I haven't seen anyone bring this up, on this story or otherwise...but I read in New Scientist last year about functional MRI being the phrenology of our time. I can't find reference to it on the website, but a google returns this among others.
Could anyone here shed any light on this?
Often I find myself going to type in the URL of a website, manage to get distracted by four things on the way to focusing on the location dialogue, and by the time I'm read to type, I've completely forgotten where I was going to go.
However, if at that point I just 'let my fingers go', they can usually type out the first 5 letters of whatever it was I was going to go to, even if they weren't in typing position.
This is extremely handy. Any idea what it's called?
Jolt
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Yeah, but we (perhaps instinctively?) developed aeons ago inexpensive utilities for augmenting long-term storage. Like writing.
Short-term storage is a little more difficult to augment effectively because of the time factor. So maybe this discovery will actually drive the first brain mods. The evolutionary incentive is surely there.
Let's just hope Sony or Apple doesn't start off the race with some terribly marketed, proprietary, yet superior technology that will be forever relegated to the basement vault where they keep dinosaurs such as Betamax.
Plenty of cache is good, and probably does increase
intelligence. The other factors are the LOGIC and
the delusion factor. Remember the 'Magic' pentium? Fast! but rather stupid in terms of the math error.
Note that 6% of the population believes in UFOs.
Of the 6%, probably some are of above-average-intelligence.
Note that many people have logic breakdowns when
something challenges their beliefs. This is a 'negative' intelligence factor.
Also, please note that intelligence isn't just speed.
Below-averege intelligence means that some things are totally beyond comprehension, however long the
attempt is.
( dog and cat intelligence can be rated, but will they ever understand FORTRAN? )
There is also the transfer capability to long-term memory to consider. This is a necessary function for learning and 'building' an expert internal representation of the concept framework....
this sig not remembered in 10 minutes, 9-minute cache refresh...
I find the methodology of their research much more interesting than their results. I've done quite a bit of work in this area, including my dissertation, and from the very high level description of the tasks involved their results need to be interpreted in a much more limited sense than they are being presented.
The task that you are given for a specified stimulus is going to very much influence your performance on later tasks. If you are presented a slide and asked to count the number of dots, then later asked whether or not the number of dots on a particular slide was even / odd, then you are likely to do fairly well. But what if you are presented a slide and asked if there was a blue dot on the slide or not, how is your performance going to be on the even / odd task later on? What kind of curve are you going to get for each task when you vary the number of dots and can you really then imply a limit to the theory of memory?
Obviously, you need more details than is presented in the shorter article. The last paragraph below is particularly interesting, since such generalizations don't seem to follow very well from the methods described.
I also would wish people would stop making analogies between the mind and the computer. It is a useful analogy for teaching undergrads and for articles in pop psych magazines, but is very restricting in terms of actual research directions.
Included below is additional text related to the story:
"Visual short-term memory is a key component of many perceptual and cognitive functions and is supported by a broad neural network, but it has a very limited storage capacity," Marois said. "Though we have the impression we are taking in a great deal of information from a visual scene, we are actually very poor at describing its contents in detail once it is gone from our sight."
Previous findings have determined that an extensive network of brain regions supports visual short-term memory. In their study, Todd and Marois showed that the severely limited storage capacity of visual short-term memory is primarily associated with just one of these regions, the posterior parietal cortex.
Todd and Marois used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technique that reveals the brain regions active in a given mental task by registering changes in blood flow and oxygenation in these regions, to identify where the capacity limit of visual short-term memory occurs.
The brains of research participants were scanned with fMRI while they were shown scenes containing one to eight colored objects. After a delay of just over a second, the subjects were queried about the scene they had just viewed.
While the subjects were good at remembering all of the objects in scenes containing four or fewer objects, they frequently made mistakes describing displays containing a larger number of objects, indicating that the storage capacity of visual short-term memory is about four.
It isn't in the greatest detail composited like that, but I do it all day long.
Inside my mind with no visual input, I can get really detailed - all senses, large landscapes. I've always attributed this to what I call my "concept driver", a piece of wetware that tells my visual cortex a tree is here, here and here, allowing me to zip through them on a speeder-bike (just a f'rinstance - not all these vistas are SF-oriented). But I don't need to see detail down to the bark texture and ants crawling up the tree. I *can*, but not always at "60fps".
I really feel for people who can't do this - I think this ability, coupled with my excellent reasoning/troubleshooting skills have led me where I am in my career.
I also dream in full sensory detail, and contrary to what people have said, I've dreamed my death (by gunshot-to-head) TWICE. Once in a combat situation and once under uncertain curcumstances. Both times I heard a bang and felt an impact like a lead pipe. Kinda like something rang my head like a bell.
And no, there was nothing afterwards...I also dreamt a presumably-fatal fall complete with impact. I shook so hard on the landing I woke me and my wife up!
Can you do people's voices? I can usually hear a voice once or twice and I can almost always "sim" the person, voice, and sometimes accent. I do it a lot to prepare for meetings or team conflicts. Strangely, while I can do a whole original scene of Friends in my noggin, I almost never get lip-sync. I have to focus really hard to do it. I think the "concept driver" just tells the wetware to not worry about it and get on with the fun.
GTRacer
- I like to fly this way too
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
I agree. I've got a terrible short term memory. I am constantly compensating for this by writing stuff down, taking notes, rehersing, etc... And yet somehow I always scored in the top percent on the various standardized tests of my youth.
than the others I've seen here is that, since it is localized instead of distributed, getting to the point of injecting signals into this cache and thus effecting one's view of immediate reality may be much easier than thought before. Say, 30-40 years away instead of over 100.
Actually though, I'm not sure why they would have thought this was spread about. Neural pathways are very slow in general. It seems like localization of highly related data such as the components of an image would be necessary due to that fact alone.
Parent may have been in jest, but I think comment should be modded interesting: The brain of an infant is mostly spare parts (some of the brain is hardwired but most of it is just "extra" brain cells (plus we barely understand the brain compared to how much we understand the body.. b.i.d.)) therefore perhaps we really could develop a training regimen which would allow the "cache" to appropriate more "hardware" (neurons) to effectively "upgrade" the "cache"....
I am not a neuroscientist, I am not a psychologist, I am just a humble nerd, talking to fellow nerds.
1
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Surely the V5 area of the visual cortex is the actual cached short-term memory store?
The entire area is a nest of feedback loops - with the visual information looping round in that area through several layers of neurons both above and below.
It could be that there are two caches: the visual cache is in the V5 layer, and the semantic cache is this one that they've found with the MRI.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
It's not too surprising that the brain's short-term visual cache would be closer to the visual cortex.
The article says the spot is in the posterior parietal cortex, which isn't particularly close to the visual cortex.
What I would like to know is how closely the visual cache is related to intelligence.
This doesn't seem to be a visual cache, more of a photographic memory.
Does it need actual visual input, instead of just imagined, and if so... <facetious>do you become marginally dumber when you close your eyes?</facetious>
Pretty likely that external/imaginary visual information is processed similarly.
From reading Synaptic Self, the general cache and CPU area would seem to be the prefrontal cortex. It can activate memories to work on (the closer the current emotional state it was recorded in, the better), and hold a few things to work on.
One thing is for sure - we all use our brains differently. Prefrontal cortex will be involved with logic, whereas emotional processing will probably be in the limbic system.
Perhaps there are many more specializations yet to be uncovered, but I'm struck at the sheer relative size of brain required to actively think and plan a next move. Considering that even a worm brain can get its owner around, you'd think our capacity for juggling thoughts would be encyclopaedic.
That's a very specific kind of processing. A worm presumably can't read. It couldn't plan its long-term future.
We've yet to build robots that can do either of these tasks. But we have built robots that can move around.
So many small functional pieces of the brain; I'm struck by how independent the sections of the brain are, by and large.
Firstly, take a look at what the tests are doing - forcing the user into processing a simple task. Maybe someone could re-program other parts of their brain to help, but that might take days of practise.
Large-scale coordination has to go through a secondary 'chemical drip' system, from neuromodulators released by non-connecting nerves throughout the brain. It's that level of coordination required to put your brain to sleep or wake it up, amongst other things.
There are deep neural projections throughout the brain. This neurochemical system is a an artifact from the time we had reptilian brains.
I'm looking forward to more decoding of the brain's structures - narrowing down specific activities to a small area of the brain like they did is fantastic.
A lot has been done. Start here.
I'm also going to add that the conclusions are pretty ridiculous:
A large increase in the subject's brain activity on the four-dot test indicated that his or her memory capacity had not been pushed to its limit. No increase in electrical activity indicated that his or her working memory had topped out on the two-dot test. By graphing these responses, the team worked out the exact size of each subject's working memory.
More likely it means that 4 dots is no more challenging than 2 dots, in the same way that a CPU has no more difficulty adding 2 digit numbers instead of 1.
"Short term memory" is a concept, nothing more. This is a case of deciding on an architecture in advance and presenting only that evidence that appears to support it. It comes from the current thinking about computer design which is in turn assumed to be equivalent to hardware concepts, which have nothing to do with how the brain actually works. At best, computers have tried to imitate the brain on occasion (at least the many imperfect concepts concerning the brain).
There is no credible evidence proving the existence of short-term memory, including this article. Sure it seems to be plausible, but that isn't proof and many myths throughout history have been perpetuated the same way.
It's all long-term memory - the only difference is whether you can find it after you stored it. Memory techniques help to cross-reference items so you can find them later, that's all. "Short-term memory" is a concept invented during the phony Drug Wars to make marijuana a bad thing where little else can be said against it, and the idea stuck and became an ingrained myth. Substitute "attention span" for "short term memory" and you get the equivalent outcome, therefore the popular presumption of short-term memory remains unproven.
Note that proving a thing and disproving it are two different things - I am doing neither here - I am merely debunking the arguments that attempt to demonstrate a favored idea. It lacks sufficient evidence, but it just happens to be a myth that people like to believe. Throughout history many such myths have existed, and myth-followers go to great length to defend their favorite ones, as if the truth lacks the ability to stand up for itself.
This article is not talking about working memory, it is talking about sensory memory. They are not the same. For a good explanation/theory of working memory, check out Charles Baddeley's work. Localizing visual sensory memory to the posterior parietal cortex is not a suprising finding. That would in fact likely be tertiary visual association cortex. I imagine that they picked the visual sensory memory task because it is difficult to generate an analagous paradigm across other sensory modalities.
This would fall in line with the fact that very smart people like Einstein, Feynman, and the like are/were able to visualize complex systems and ideas easily. 'Visual thinking' comes naturally to them. I'm not sure why this doesn't always translate into high mathematical talent. I've noticed that some very smart people are not able to calculate quickly or perform large calcuations without the help of paper or a computer They are able to plan out and model complex software systems in their heads, or design and understand complex mechanical systems and engineering problems easily. It seems like some people fall into the 'good at numbers' camp and others are in the 'good at language' camp. Not sure if this is related to their 'cache' size.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Well, in the case of blind people, the visual system of their brain is taken over by their auditory system. They end up processing sound they way sight is usually processed, allowing them to "see" with whatever limited audio cues are given to them. It's amazing how adaptive the brain is.
Not completely surprising - since the human brain also does some echolocation (and other processing of sound redundancies and missing energy in particular bands into information about nearby objects).
Both systems involve communication between processed sensory information and a model of the surrounding space. This implies that they might have evolved from a common system, whcih might make it easier for the nerve cells able to retarget from one to the other if one is hampered by lack of input. (Alternatively, lack of input in one system and expanded use of the other might make the heavily-used system grow or recruit more untargeted cells.)
Regarding echolocation: Try it. Go into a quiet empty room - preferably an empty one with hard walls and not much soft furniture and curtains - and close your eyes. Make a clicking sound with your mouth - or walk in shoes that make a sharp sound when they hit the floor. You'll be able to "feel" the walls as you approach them, and get a sense of the size of the room. Sound reflecting or absorbing objects may also be noticable.
Of course blind people make more use of this system. There was one case of a blind kid who could ride a bicycle on quiet streets using it - making clicking sounds with his mouth as the illumination.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It could be short term memory if you have a habit of spelling words out when you think of them. But more likely you've spelled that website name so many times that its stored somewhere as long term nondeclarative memory. Then the ability to type what you were thinking of when you don't remember, is probably caused by *priming*.
When you think of a website i guess you're subconsciously planning ahead the movement of your fingers. sometimes when i think of words that start with S, my middle finger on my left hand almost twitches.
I believe you've typed the particular website name so many times that somewhere between your premotor cortex and possibly broca's area you have a "linked list" of letters to type to get to that particular website, as well as many others. For example, I might have a S->L->A->S->H->D->O>T "linked list" that is primed when I think of slashdot. That list may remain primed even after my short term memory forgets about slashdot.
The reason why you can't remember the name even though you have it primed, is because you have primed a linked list of motor commands rather than something that goes into wernick's area.
[I don't have a slashdot account - neocortex is my name]
They did not map STWM, they mapped ONE visual-only application of one part of STWM, the visuo-spatial "scratchpad". They did not test spatial relationships, so they did not test the entirety of V-S STWM. There is no reason to assume that had they tested spatial memory, the result would have been in the same place. For that matter there's no reason to assume that if the stimuli were words instead of dots the result would be the same.
They also did not test the auditory portion of STWM, the "phonological loop". Nor did they test the functional control mechanism that operates these, the "central executive".
One particular application of STWM might appear this localized. There's no reason to expect a different application to be in the same place. In fact, it'd be ridiculous to expect it. It's far more likely that, given all the possible localizations that could be found for the various tasks STWM can tackle, the outcome would be exactly the opposite of what's stated: STWM *is* distributed around the cortex.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
It usually goes something like this:
1. I think "oooh, I need to recompile that kernel module on host foo."
2. I turn on the computer monitor to find Slashdot or something else distracting already up on the screen.
3. I start a MP3 stream, read a couple of articles... get generally distracted.
4. I think "What was I going to do?". I then just relax and let myself do whatever comes naturally, and which point I launch my SSH client, log into the host and get about half way to the task when I remember where I was going with it and "consciously" continue from where I managed to get myself without thinking about it.
I know, that sounds a bit odd.. but I'm serious- that's how it happens! And it happens more and more as I get older. (I'm almost 30.)
I attribute it to "muscle memory"... It feels exactly the same as being able to play the first part of a song on piano or guitar before remembering what it is I'm playing, which I'm sure any musician can relate to.
I figure I started planning the familiar sequence of computer events in my head back when I thought "I need to...", so I'm able to just plow through that sequence naturally and observe it to get clues where it was I was going with that action. God that still sounds odd, but that's exactly how it happens.
Of course, I drive my car in the same fasion... once again more and more as I get older, and it drives my girlfriend CRAZY.
"Ooops... sorry... everywhere else I drive starts with that sequence of turns."
{sigh}