Ventromedial prefrontal damage and memory for context: Perceptual versus semantic features.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory for context is known to rely on episodic binding and strategic retrieval processes. It is unclear, however, whether memory for different contextual features taps the same cognitive and neural mechanisms. Here, the authors compare memory for a perceptual feature (i.e., the format in which an item had been presented) and for a semantic feature (i.e., the concept with which an item had been paired) in 13 patients with lesions in ventromedial prefrontal cortex, including patients with and without confabulation, and 13 healthy controls. Participants studied picture-word pairs and received an old-new recognition test that included intact pairs, rearranged pairs, format pairs (studied pairs in which the picture-word format of each item was switched), old-new pairs, and new-new pairs. Hit rates for intact pairs were similar for all participant groups. Compared with controls, patients, especially those with confabulation, had higher false-alarm rates for format pairs but comparable false-alarm rates for rearranged pairs. The authors propose that distinct monitoring processes are engaged during retrieval of perceptual and semantic context, with only the former crucially dependent on ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".