Deficient relational binding processes in adolescents with psychosis: Evidence from impaired memory for source and temporal context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Findings from the literature consistently revealed episodic memory deficits in adolescents with psychosis. However, the nature of the dysfunction remains unclear. Based on a cognitive neuropsychological approach, a theoretically driven paradigm was used to generate valid interpretations about the underlying memory processes impaired in these patients. METHODS: A total of 16 inpatient adolescents with psychosis and 19 individually matched controls were assessed using an experimental task designed to measure memory for source and temporal context of studied words. Retrospective confidence judgements for source and temporal context responses were also assessed. RESULTS: On word recognition, patients had more difficulty than controls discriminating target words from neutral distractors. In addition, patients identified both source and temporal context features of recognised items less often than controls. Confidence judgements analyses revealed that the difference between the proportions of correct and incorrect responses made with high confidence was lower in patients than in controls. In addition, the proportion of high-confident responses that were errors was higher in patients compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest impaired relational binding processes in adolescents with psychosis, resulting in a difficulty to create unified memory representations. Our findings on retrospective confidence data point to impaired monitoring of retrieved information that may also impair memory performance in these individuals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".