Hemispheric Encoding Asymmetry is More Apparent Than Real
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous neuroimaging studies have claimed a left hemisphere specialization for episodic "encoding" and a right hemisphere specialization for episodic "retrieval." Yet studies of split-brain patients indicate relatively minor memory impairment after disconnection of the two hemispheres. This suggests that both hemispheres are capable of encoding and retrieval. In the present experiment, we examined the possible limits on encoding capacity of each hemisphere by manipulating the "depth" of processing during the encoding of unfamiliar faces and familiar words in the left and right hemispheres of two split-brain patients. Results showed that only the left hemisphere benefited from deeper (more elaborate) encoding of familiar words, and only the right hemisphere benefited from deeper encoding of unfamiliar faces. Our findings are consistent with the view that hemispheric asymmetries in episodic encoding are related to hemisphere-specific processing of particular stimuli. Convergent with recent neuroimaging studies, these results with split-brain patients also suggest that these hemispheric differences are not due to unique specializations in each half brain for encoding memories, but rather, are due to preferential recruitment of the synaptically closer prefrontal cortex to posterior regions processing material-specific information.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".