MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112423026 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00050

Right Frontal Lobe Mediation of Recollection- and Familiarity-based Verbal Recognition Memory: Evidence from Patients with Tumor Resections

2011· article· en· W2112423026 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole D. Anderson, Patrick S. R. Davidson, Warren Mason, Fuqiang Gao, Malcolm A. Binns, Gordon Winocur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPsychologyRecallMediationRecognition memoryFrontal lobeCognitive psychologyVerbal memoryCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medial-temporal, parietal, and pFC regions have been implicated in recollection and familiarity, but existing evidence from neuroimaging and patient studies is limited and conflicting regarding the role of specific regions within pFC in these memory processes. We report a study of 20 patients who had undergone resection of right frontal lobe tumors and 20 matched healthy control participants. The location and extent of lesions were traced on the patients' scans. A process dissociation procedure was employed to yield estimates of the contributions of recollection and familiarity in verbal recognition performance. Group comparisons revealed deficits in recollection but not familiarity in the patient group relative to their healthy counterparts. We found a positive relationship between estimates of familiarity and lesion sizes in the right inferior pFC (BA 11, 47) which was significant upon bootstrap resampling. These results are discussed in terms of prior work linking this area to an overextended sense of familiarity.

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)0.006
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207