MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129737209 · doi:10.1080/02643290342000609

Involvement of the hippocampus in implicit learning of supra-span sequences: The case of sj

2004· article· en· W2129737209 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Gagnon, Jonathan K. Foster, J. Turcotte, Steven Jongenelis

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Neuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySerial reaction timeImplicit learningSequence learningRecallCognitive psychologyTask (project management)HippocampusSpan (engineering)Free recallMemory spanEngramCognitionNeuroscienceWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning of supra-span sequences was assessed in a densely amnesic individual (SJ) who suffers from a substantial circumscribed bilateral lesion to the hippocampus. SJ's ability to lay down information originating from repetitive memory recall episodes was assessed using Hebb's supra-span procedure. After assessment of short-term memory span, 25 sequences of span +1 items were presented to SJ for immediate serial recall (ISR), one sequence being presented repeatedly eight times. Learning was deduced by the comparison of ISR scores on the repeated versus nonrepeated sequences of span +1 items. SJ's learning capacity was examined using four different types of stimuli: digits, spatial locations (Corsi block tapping test), words, and pseudowords. Implicit learning of sensorimotor sequences was also assessed in SJ using a serial reaction time (SRT) paradigm. Findings with the supra-span ISR task revealed evidence of learning in SJ with all four types of stimuli. The learning magnitude, as well as learning rate, observed in SJ were comparable to those observed in matched control participants. SJ showed evidence of implicit learning on the SRT paradigm. We conclude that the hippocampus is not required to learn certain types of recurrent information, and that the supra-span ISR task can be considered as an implicit-based learning paradigm. These findings have significant implications for our conceptualisation of implicit learning, and for understanding of the role of the hippocampus in learning.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations45
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive NeuropsychologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207