Effects of familiarity and cognitive function on naturalistic action performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of familiarity on the performance of routine (familiar) naturalistic actions (NAs) that had been performed several times prior to the experiment (e.g., making coffee) and novel (unfamiliar) naturalistic actions (NNAs) that had not been performed prior to instruction (e.g., making a mock volcano). We hypothesized that similar psychological processes were associated with both types of action, but that memory and executive functions would be more important for NNAs. METHOD: In Experiment 1, 18 undergraduates verbally described NAs and NNAs as they observed the tasks being performed. In Experiment 2, stroke patients, impaired (n = 4) or unimpaired (n = 4) on a test of general cognitive function, and 12 controls, physically enacted and arranged in correct order photos of NAs and NNAs. RESULTS: In Experiment 1, the central (crux), but not the noncentral (noncrux) actions, associated with NAs and NNAs were verbally described. In Experiment 2, NA and NNA enactment and photo arrangement performance was lower in the impaired group compared with controls. The impaired group had higher omission (omitting an action) than commission (performing an action incorrectly) crux action error rates for NAs, but the reverse pattern for NNAs. NA performance was more strongly associated with general cognitive function, whereas NNA performance correlated more strongly with executive functioning and memory measures. CONCLUSION: Both types of task involve overlapping cognitive processes. Memory and executive function may be more important for NNAs because these tasks are encoded into memory at study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".