MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967976179 · doi:10.1080/20445911.2012.693468

Does source memory impairment associated with emotionally arousing stimuli occur at encoding or retrieval?

2012· article· en· W1967976179 on OpenAlexaff
Hajime Otani, Melvyn M Jaffa, Terry M. Libkuman, Phillip N. Goernert, Koichi Kato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisattribution of memoryPsychologyRecallEncoding (memory)Cognitive psychologyMemory impairmentCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present experiment investigated whether negatively arousing stimuli produce source memory impairment and whether the impairment occurs at encoding or retrieval. Participants were presented with negatively arousing, positively arousing, and neutral pictures. Each picture was followed by an instructional slide that indicated whether the picture was an Apple-kind or an Orange-kind. Item memory was assessed by free recall and source memory was assessed by asking participants to classify the recalled pictures into the two kinds of pictures. The results indicated that item memory was greater for the negatively arousing pictures than for the positively arousing and the neutral pictures. However, the negatively arousing pictures produced more misattribution errors than the neutral pictures, replicating source memory impairment. It was concluded that source memory impairment associated with negatively arousing stimuli occurs at encoding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive PsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207