Functional Equivalence of WAIS-III/WMS-III Digit and Spatial Span under Forward and Backward Recall Conditions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to examine the performance characteristics of the Wechsler Spatial Span subtest in a mixed clinical sample. Contrary to expectation, differential patterns of performance were obtained on the Digit and Spatial Span tasks. Forward Digit Span scores were significantly higher than backward recall scores, but this was not the case for Spatial Span. There were no differences between forward and backward raw Spatial Span scores at the mean level. Further, about one third of the sample showed better performance on backward compared to forward Spatial Span. In addition, performance on the Spatial Span backward task correlated unexpectedly with that of the WMS-III Immediate and Delayed Auditory Index scores. Overall, the findings suggest that clinicians should be hesitant when interpreting the Spatial Span task, and the backward condition in particular, as a measure of working memory. Finally, methodological concerns with the Spatial Span task are noted, raising additional concerns regarding the meaning of this task.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 it