On the relation between conceptual priming, neural priming, and novelty assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consistently reported finding in functional neuroimaging studies which compare processing of new information to processing of old information is a reduction in blood flow, and hence neural activity, associated with the old condition. This deactivation has been labeled neural priming. Some investigators have hypothesized that neural priming is the physiological mechanism underlying conceptual priming--a facilitation in the semantic processing of repeated information. Others, however, have hypothesized that neural priming reflects novelty assessment--a mechanism which minimizes the probability that redundant information will be stored in long-term memory. In this paper, the conceptual priming and novelty assessment hypotheses are compared and contrasted in order to ask, and tentatively answer, the question: Are conceptual priming and novelty assessment cognitively and neurophysiologically distinct? Based on a review of the literature, it is suggested that whereas novelty assessment and conceptual priming are distinct cognitive entities, they cannot be presently separated neurophysiologically. That is, some novelty assessment deactivations may in fact reflect priming, and some priming deactivations may in fact reflect novelty assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".