Experimental Production of Illusory (False) Memories in Reconstructions of Narratives: Effect Size and Potential Mediation by Right Hemispheric Stimulation from Complex, Weak Magnetic Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experiment was designed to discern the proportion of false, inferential and verbatim memories that would be included in the reconstruction, one week later, of a 5 min narrative containing ambiguous but emotional content about a little boy. After 48 subjects were administered Spiegel's Hypnosis Induction Profile, they listened to the narrative, were exposed to one of four applications of transcerebral weak, complex magnetic fields for 30 min and then given either an accurate or inaccurate short summary of the story. One week later the group who received the erroneous summary reported more false memories about the original story than did the reference group; this treatment accommodated about 40% of the variance in numbers of false memories. Only an indicator of electrical lability within the temporal lobes (but not hypnotizability) was strongly associated with the numbers of inferential memories but not the numbers of false memories. The group that received transcerebral stimulation over the right hemisphere by a complex magnetic field and the erroneous summary reported three times the numbers of false memories compared to the other groups. Whereas verbatim memories showed a strong primacy effect inferential memories exhibited a strong recency effect (eta(2) =.66).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".