MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Episodic Memory Meets Working Memory in the Frontal Lobe: Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Encoding and Retrieval

2000· article· en· W2069432434 on OpenAlexaff
Andy Lee, Trevor W. Robbins, Adrian M. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Neurobiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpisodic memoryPrefrontal cortexFunctional neuroimagingNeuroimagingContext-dependent memoryEncoding (memory)NeuroscienceExplicit memorySemantic memoryCognitive psychologyPsychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent functional-neuroimaging studies have provided a wealth of new information suggesting that regions of the prefrontal cortex play a role in episodic memory encoding and retrieval. This review seeks to evaluate the results of these studies in the context of one general model that has proposed that the left prefrontal cortex is preferentially involved in episodic memory encoding, whereas the right prefrontal cortex is preferentially involved in episodic memory retrieval, irrespective of the type (e.g., modality) of information being remembered. The origins of this framework are considered in some detail and then all relevant functional-neuroimaging studies are critically reviewed. The results of this review fail to provide support for the functional-asymmetry model, suggesting instead that episodic memory encoding and retrieval may actually involve similar regions of the lateral prefrontal cortex when all factors relating to the type of stimulus material (i.e., modality), are appropriately controlled.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in NeurobiologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207