Implicit colour memory mediated by explicit memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the role of task-relevance and explicit memory in implicit colour memory. Methods: At study, participants (N=112) reported either the colour or the category of 26 coloured line drawings. At test, black-and-white versions of objects (26 old, 26 new) were shown and participants reported the colour of the line drawing seen at study (explicit memory). Subsequently on each trial, participants were shown coloured versions of the same objects (half the same colour as during study and half colour transformed) and reported colour, category or identity (implicit memory). Results: When the colour and category of the items were correlated at study, those participants who reported category at study (N=48) evidenced reaction times for colour transformed items that were longer than those for non-transformed objects in all test conditions. Participants who reported colour at study (N=32) evidenced no influence of colour transformation on implicit memory. Furthermore, when colour and category were not correlated at study, participants who reported category at study (N=32) evidenced no influence of colour transformation on implicit memory. However, in all conditions, repetition priming was absent when explicit recall was incorrect. Conclusions: Colour appears to be encoded even when colour is irrelevant to the task at study (i.e. report category). Repetition priming occurred regardless of whether colour was relevant (i.e. report category or colour) or irrelevant to the decision at test (i.e. report identity). However, implicit recall was not independent of explicit recall in any of the conditions in these experiments.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".