MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062811456 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.5.618

Implicit memory is not immune to interference.

2001· review· en· W2062811456 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePsychological Bulletin · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsImplicit memoryForgettingInterference (communication)Cognitive psychologyInterference theoryMemory errorsPsychologyContrast (vision)Explicit memoryAffect (linguistics)Retrieval-induced forgettingCognitionComputer scienceWorking memoryEpisodic memoryCommunicationNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does interference, a primary source of forgetting in explicit memory, also affect implicit memory? Several early and highly influential studies have suggested that implicit memory is immune to interference. In contrast, a number of subsequent investigations have reported evidence for interference. As well, amnesic patients, whose performance relies primarily on implicit memory, often show interference effects. A review of methods, materials, and findings suggests that interference occurs on implicit tests when targets and nontargets are similar and so compete as potential responses to the memory cue. Further, there is some evidence that the degree of interference on implicit tasks is affected by the number of competing items and their strength relative to the target. Interference effects in implicit memory seem to parallel those in explicit memory, and the authors consider the implications of this conclusion for theoretical concepts of memory and the brain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.031

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.234 · 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