Patients with schizophrenia do not produce more false memories than controls but are more confident in them
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia consistently demonstrate impairment in memory acquisition. However, no empirical consensus has been achieved on whether or not patients are more prone to produce false memories. METHOD: A visual variant of the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm was administered to 35 schizophrenia patients and 34 healthy controls. Recognition and recognition confidence were later tested for studied and lure items. Strong contextual cues at recognition encouraged adoption of a gist-based retrieval strategy, which was predicted to elicit over-confidence in errors and increase the false memory rate in patients. RESULTS: Patients were significantly impaired on true item recognition but did not display more false memories than healthy subjects. As predicted from prior findings by our group, patients were more confident than controls for lure items, while being at the same time under-confident for studied items (reduced confidence gap). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients did not produce more false memories than controls, such errors were made with higher confidence relative to controls. The decreased confidence gap in patients is thought to stem from a gist-based recollection strategy, whereby little evidence suffices to make a strong judgment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it