Recognition memory impairments caused by false recognition of novel objects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental assumption underlying most current theories of amnesia is that memory impairments arise because previously studied information either is lost rapidly or is made inaccessible (i.e., the old information appears to be new). Recent studies in rodents have challenged this view, suggesting instead that under conditions of high interference, recognition memory impairments following medial temporal lobe damage arise because novel information appears as though it has been previously seen. Here, we developed a new object recognition memory paradigm that distinguished whether object recognition memory impairments were driven by previously viewed objects being treated as if they were novel or by novel objects falsely recognized as though they were previously seen. In this indirect, eyetracking-based passive viewing task, older adults at risk for mild cognitive impairment showed false recognition to high-interference novel items (with a significant degree of feature overlap with previously studied items) but normal novelty responses to low-interference novel items (with a lower degree of feature overlap). The indirect nature of the task minimized the effects of response bias and other memory-based decision processes, suggesting that these factors cannot solely account for false recognition. These findings support the counterintuitive notion that recognition memory impairments in this memory-impaired population are not characterized by forgetting but rather are driven by the failure to differentiate perceptually similar objects, leading to the false recognition of novel objects as having been seen before.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".