Cognitive neuroscience of false memory: the role of gist memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the role of gist memory and gist representation in the formation of false recognition, specifically in the Deese, Roediger and McDermott Paradigm. We found that normal individuals displayed a range of susceptibility to false recognition and true recognition and this was related to their scores on both the Autism Spectrum Quotient and the Toronto-Alexithymia Scale. More ‘male-brained’ participants exhibited less susceptibility to false recognition but also less veridical recognition. The reverse was true for more ‘female-brained’ participants. The idea of false recognition and gist memory lying along a continuum was further emphasised by work on individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. We found they were less susceptible to false recognition but also produced less veridical recognition. We also found differences in performance between two groups of autism individuals who also differed in age. The results of further manipulations using both picture and word paradigms suggested that gist memory could be improved in younger individuals with autism. We also examined a patient group with Functional Memory Disorder using the DRM paradigm and a confabulation task and found them less able to produce true recognition in the DRM compared with a control group. Their memory impairments could not be attributed to depression since none were clinically depressed, so we suggested that they represent the tale end of impairment to gist memory. We also explored gist memory in a patient with dense anterograde amnesia who showed reduced true recognition and a tendency to reduced false recognition, but through manipulation of the stimuli using word and pictorial material she could perform like controls due to improved item-specific discrimination. A new face recognition paradigm was also tested in which she showed a tendency towards increased false recognition in comparison with controls. Finally, we suggest the use of the DRM paradigm as a test for memory malingering since we found participants could not replicate the performance of amnesia patients without a cost in their response latencies. This is discussed through the case study of GC a man suspected of exaggerating his memory symptoms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".