Input and output modes modulate phonological and semantic contributions to immediate serial recall: Evidence from a brain-damaged patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psycholinguistic models of short-term retention suggest that performance at verbal short-term memory (STM) tasks relies on the activation of phonological, lexical, and semantic representations, the relative impact of each depending on task variables. This was tested in normal individuals and in I.R., a brain-damaged patient with a phonological deficit. In Experiment 1, the effect of phonological and semantic similarity was assessed under different presentation formats (words, pictures) and recall modes (oral, picture pointing, and picture pointing among distractors). In Experiment 2, effects were compared using reproduction and reconstruction responses. When words were used at input, controls showed robust phonological similarity effects irrespective of response mode. In contrast, I.R. showed a reliable semantic effect. However, both studies indicated that when response mode promoted order recuperation (reconstruction and picture pointing modes), I.R. showed a typical phonological similarity effect with no semantic contribution. The data support current psycholinguistic views suggesting that the short-term retention of verbal items depends on the temporary activation of word representations. In healthy controls, presentation mode appears to modulate the role of those representations but in I.R., it was the output condition--particularly whether order was or was not required--that was found to be crucial with respect to the appearance of semantic or phonological effects. This supports the important role that order information plays in short-term memory tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".