Global similarity predicts dissociation of classification and recognition: Evidence questioning the implicit–explicit learning distinction in amnesia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissociation of classification and recognition in amnesia is widely taken to imply 2 functional systems: an implicit procedural-learning system that is spared in amnesia and an explicit episodic-learning system that is compromised. We argue that both tasks reflect the global similarity of probes to memory. In classification, subjects sort unstudied grammatical exemplars from lures, whereas in recognition, they sort studied grammatical exemplars from lures. Hence, global similarity is necessarily greater in recognition than in classification. Moreover, a grammatical exemplar's similarity to studied exemplars is a nonlinear function of the integrity of the data in memory. Assuming that data integrity is better for control subjects than for subjects with amnesia, the nonlinear relation combined with the advantage for recognition over classification predicts the dissociation of recognition and classification. To illustrate the dissociation of recognition and classification in healthy undergraduates, we manipulated study time to vary the integrity of the data in memory and brought the dissociation under experimental control. We argue that the dissociation reflects a general cost in memory rather than a selective impairment of separate procedural and episodic systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".