MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108135389 · doi:10.1002/acp.755

Vividness of visual imagery and source memory for audio and text

2001· article· en· W2108135389 on OpenAlexaff
Carolin Eberman, Stuart J. McKelvie

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningPsychologyReading (process)Mental imageAudio visualRecognition memoryCognitive psychologySpeech recognitionCognitionCommunicationComputer scienceMultimediaLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two groups of high and low vivid imagers heard an audiotape of a crime, read an account of it with both correct and new information, then took recognition and source memory tests. While listening and reading, both groups were told to attend carefully, but one was also instructed to form visual images of the scene. Recognition memory accuracy was greater for material from the text only than from the audio only, whereas source memory accuracy was greater for audio than for text. For source memory of text, high imagers performed more poorly than low imagers under imagery instructions. These results replicate previous work and extend it from an initial film source to an audio source. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Cognitive PsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207