MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unitization supports lasting performance and generalization on a relational memory task: Evidence from a previously undocumented developmental amnesic case

2015· article· en· W1019071411 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria C. D’Angelo, Arber Kacollja, Jennifer S. Rabin, R. Shayna Rosenbaum, Jennifer D. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychologia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityBaycrest Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyGeneralizationTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyAmnesiaEpisodic memoryDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the amnesic case D.A. was shown to circumvent his relational memory impairments, as observed in the transverse patterning (TP) task, using a self-generated unitization strategy, and such performance benefits were maintained over extended delays (Ryan et al., 2013). "Unitization" encourages fusing of distinct items, through an action, into a single unit from which the relations among the items may then be derived. Here, we provide the first documentation of the developmental amnesic case, N.C., who presents with relatively circumscribed lesions to the extended hippocampal system, and with impaired episodic memory. Despite impairments on standard versions of TP, N.C. benefited from unitization, showed evidence of transfer to novel stimuli, and maintained his performance over extended delays. These findings suggest that self-generation is not a requirement for the successful implementation of unitization, and further provides the first evidence of rapid transfer and long-lasting success of a learning strategy in a human amnesic case.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologiaSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207