Jesse Rissman

MDRS MDRS is a professional society dedicated to the study of memory. Members engage in basic and clinical research into how memory works and why it fails.

My favorite conference is the Memory Disorders Research Society meeting. It's a delightful community: top-notch research & wonderful people who have been so supportive in my career.

Want to join? Nominations for membership (including self-nominations) are open until April 9! Form at the top👇🏼

The Memory Disorders Research Society (MDRS) has extended its deadline in seeking nominations for new members to next Wednesday (4/9)! Self-nominations welcome. Feel free to DM me if you have questions about the society or the membership process. Application link: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...

Our results suggest that face perception and memory might be less intertwined than we might think, with implications for prosopagnosia and memory related disorders.

Work led by the fantastic Jan Kadlec.

We test this with an additional face inversion experiment. We find greater inversion effects for easier perceptual levels --> more holistic processing at easy levels --> more interaction at easy levels as a result of face-specific interference which disrupts holistic processing.

Instead, we hypothesize that the face-related distractor in the face-specific interference task disrupts holistic face processing, pushing participants to switch to a feature-based strategy instead.

This pattern of interaction does not fit with theories of increased cognitive load, or overlapping shared resources. Also, just increasing cognitive load through an orthogonal, non-face related interference condition (math), has negligible effect on performance on the face task.

An equally robust finding though, is that under more complex conditions (when an emotional face interference task was inserted into the delay period), we do find interactions. Surprisingly, these go in an unexpected direction - more interaction for easy rather than hard perceptual conditions. Why?

Across four large, independent datasets, with over 800 participants in total, we find clear evidence that face perception and face working memory are fundamentally independent, at least when task demands are low.

We parametrically modulate difficulty in each domain separately. Shared resources would imply interactions between perceptual and memory difficulty, with increasing interaction as difficulty increases. If they are independent however, we would expect difficulty to be additive.

We designed the Face Memory and Perception (FMP) task to systematically test whether perceptual and memory components of face processing rely on shared cognitive resources, or function independently.

Behavioural separation of face memory and face perception A long-standing debate in neuropsychology concerns whether perception and memory function as independent systems or interact to support cognition. To investigate this, we developed the Face Memory and...

Excited to share this new preprint, along with an explainer thread written by my talented collaborator Michal Ramot.

Are face perception and face memory fundamentally independent processes, or are they overlapping and impossible to disentangle? 🧵 www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

Still one month left to apply for the tenure-track faculty position in "Measurement Issues in Complex Data Structures" in the UCLA Dept of Psychology.

The scope is broad, but includes methodologists working with brain data (fMRI, EEG, cellular neurophysiology/imaging).
recruit.apo.ucla.edu/JPF09885

Would love to be added if I’m not already on there. Thanks!

🧠👁️ Our MindEye2 preprint is out!

We reconstruct seen images from fMRI activity using only 1 hour of training data.

This is possible by first pretraining a shared-subject model using other people's data, and then fine-tuning on a held-out subject with only 1 hr of data.

arxiv.org/abs/2403.11207

Frontiers | Why mental disorders are brain disorders. And why they are not: ADHD and the challenges of heterogeneity and reification <p>Scientific attempts to identify biomarkers to reliably diagnose mental disorders have thus far been unsuccessful. This has inspired the Research Domain Cr...

Maybe this one:

Schleim, S. (2022). Why mental disorders are brain disorders. And why they are not: ADHD and the challenges of heterogeneity and reification. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 943049.

www.frontiersin.org/journals/psy...

In case you’re interested in trying out these methods, all of @crewalsh.bsky.social’s code is available at osf.io/5q6th/

Future studies will be needed to better characterize whether these subtle learning-induced semantic distortions are short-lived or whether they can endure for weeks or months.

Despite the general stability of semantic knowledge over the course of one’s lifetime, our results demonstrate that even a brief session of episodic learning can subtly yet systematically re-sculpt semantic space, and this representational change impacts subsequent recall.

Testing, on the other hand, facilitates elaborative connections linking paired words – when these connections don’t already exist (like in semantically related pairs), new connections are created, which subtly change the representation content of both cue and target.

Together, our results paint a picture where there are two (interacting) processes occurring during paired associate learning. Pre-existing semantic information enhances memory by reducing interference from potential lures and making cues more predictive of targets.

Change in the target, on the other hand, was only predictive of later recall in unrelated pairs that were tested – for those pairs, the more the target representation changed, the more likely the pair was to be recalled.

Finally, we looked to see how all this representational change related to behavior. Regardless of how a pair was learned or the semantic relatedness of the pair, more representational change in the cue was associated with a higher probability of recall.

Then, we looked at how the representational structure of individual words changed across learning - we showed that semantically related cues were drawn asymmetrically towards their targets, while semantically unrelated cues and targets were drawn together symmetrically.

Next, we showed that testing repelled words that were moderately related to the to-be-learned cues. Put another way, words that might have tripped up recall of our to-be-learned pairs were pushed further away in semantic space so they didn’t interfere with recall.

Using this measure, we first showed that words in semantically related pairs were drawn closer in representational space than those in semantically unrelated pairs.

This gave us a sensitive measure of how the semantic representation of each of our words changed across learning.

The twist here was that we never directly asked them to make judgements on words in our to-be-learned pairs – we didn’t want them to have any top-down biases after learning. That meant that we had to impute these values using the relational judgements of the other words!

Just looking at accuracy doesn’t tell us about how this change happens, so we were inspired by neuroimaging analyses and had our participants do a drag-and-drop task where they judged how related words were to each other before and after learning.

At the final test, there was a smaller testing effect for semantically related pairs. Pre-existing semantic information rescued memory for the restudied pairs to make the difference between testing and restudying smaller!

We wanted to understand how these processes interact, so we had 80 participants learn semantically related and semantically unrelated pairs of words through either active retrieval practice or passive restudying.