MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010605544 · doi:10.1126/science.1194780

Paradoxical False Memory for Objects After Brain Damage

2010· article· en· W2010605544 on OpenAlex
Stephanie M. McTighe, Rosemary A. Cowell, Boyer D. Winters, Timothy J. Bussey, Lisa M. Saksida

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsMemory impairmentCognitive psychologyObject (grammar)Interference theoryComputer scienceCognitionCognitive impairmentVisual memoryPsychologyCognitive scienceMemory errorsNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel or Familiar? Amnesia is characterized by a number of memory deficits, including the apparent inability to distinguish between novel and familiar stimuli. McTighe et al. (p. 1408 ; see the Perspective by Eichenbaum ) observed that the recognition memory of brain-damaged rats in a standard model of amnesia was impaired not because previously experienced objects seemed to be novel, but because objects not previously experienced seemed to be familiar. Furthermore, simply placing the animal in a visually deprived environment during the delay, reducing visual interference, completely rescued the impairment. This counterintuitive finding contradicts the predominant “multiple memory systems” model in which amnesia is usually considered and forces a reconsideration of fundamental assumptions underlying our understanding of amnesia.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.283 · 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