MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038773581 · doi:10.1080/00221309.2013.848180

Emotional Salience and the Isolation Effect

2013· article· en· W2038773581 on OpenAlex
Hajime Otani, Nicholas R. Von Glahn, Terry M. Libkuman, Phillip N. Goernert, Koichi Kato

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of General Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)PsychologyIsolation (microbiology)HomogeneousRecallSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyPhenomenonMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a homogeneous list contains a few items that are different from the rest of the items in the list, these isolated items show enhanced recall compared to the same items in a list where these items are not isolated. This phenomenon, known as the isolation effect, has been explained on the basis of isolated items eliciting salience. In this experiment, negative pictures and neutral pictures were isolated at the early and late part of the list. The salience explanation would predict that participants would pay more attention to these isolated items resulting in higher judgments of learning (JOL) ratings compared to the same items in the control list. Negative pictures showed the isolation effect for both early and late isolation; however, for early isolation, JOL was similar between the isolated and non-isolated pictures indicating that the emotional isolation effect does not require emotional salience.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.299 · 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