MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015167727 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.22.2.177

Recollection- and familiarity-based memory in healthy aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

2008· article· en· W2015167727 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole D. Anderson, Patricia Ebert, Janine M. Jennings, Cheryl L. Grady, Roberto Cabeza, Simon J. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer Society
KeywordsRecallPsychologyEpisodic memoryContext (archaeology)HippocampusCognitionAudiologyAmnesiaPrefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the cognitive mechanisms of the memory impairment associated with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). We explored recollection and familiarity in 27 healthy young adults, 45 healthy older adults, and 17 individuals with aMCI. Relative to the younger adults, recollection was reduced in the older adults, especially among those with aMCI. Familiarity did not differ among groups. In the healthy younger and older adults, better performance on a set of clinical memory measures that are sensitive to medial temporal lobe functioning was associated with greater recollection. In addition, among the healthy older adults better executive functioning was also associated with greater recollection. These results are consistent with the notion that recollection is a product of strategic processes mediated by the prefrontal cortex that suppport the retrieval of context-dependent memories from the hippocampus. Hippocampal atrophy associated with aMCI may disrupt this brain network, and thereby interfere with recollection.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations151
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207