MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026717141 · doi:10.1027//0269-8803.15.1.1

Event-Related Brain Potentials and Central Executive Function: Further Evidence for Baddeley's Model

2001· article· en· W2026717141 on OpenAlexaff
Iván Kiss, Hannah Pazderka, Darlene Floden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychophysiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoNova Scotia HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryBaddeley's model of working memoryPsychologyCognitive psychologyShort-term memorySet (abstract data type)Event-related potentialCognitionNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baddeley's influential model of working memory postulates a unitary central executive that allocates mental resources to several distinct short-term buffers. Subjects viewed individually presented single numerals and were required to maintain memory sets comprised of the most recently represented three stimuli. A clearly discernible visual event-related potentials (ERP) component emerged once the lengths of series of individual numbers exceeded memory set size and revision of working memory contents was required. An ERP correlate of working memory revision also emerged upon updating of auditory stimuli. This component was absent when subjects were exposed to the same series of stimuli in a standard “oddball” target detection situation. ERPs elicited when subjects were given the opportunity to rehearse without the need to update working memory contents clearly differed in latency from ERPs seen during updating. These findings provide support for previous studies suggesting a specific ERP correlate of central executive processes in working memory and are consistent with Baddeley's model.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PsychophysiologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207