MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171657075 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00816

Multivariate fMRI and Eye Tracking Reveal Differential Effects of Visual Interference on Recognition Memory Judgments for Objects and Scenes

2015· article· en· W2171657075 on OpenAlexaff
Edward B. O’Neil, Hilary C. Watson, Sonya Dhillon, Nancy J. Lobaugh, Andy Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPsychologyObject (grammar)Recognition memoryInterference (communication)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionCommunicationMnemonicCognitive psychologyTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)CognitionNeuroscienceComputer scienceChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work has demonstrated that the perirhinal cortex (PRC) supports conjunctive object representations that aid object recognition memory following visual object interference. It is unclear, however, how these representations interact with other brain regions implicated in mnemonic retrieval and how congruent and incongruent interference influences the processing of targets and foils during object recognition. To address this, multivariate partial least squares was applied to fMRI data acquired during an interference match-to-sample task, in which participants made object or scene recognition judgments after object or scene interference. This revealed a pattern of activity sensitive to object recognition following congruent (i.e., object) interference that included PRC, prefrontal, and parietal regions. Moreover, functional connectivity analysis revealed a common pattern of PRC connectivity across interference and recognition conditions. Examination of eye movements during the same task in a separate study revealed that participants gazed more at targets than foils during correct object recognition decisions, regardless of interference congruency. By contrast, participants viewed foils more than targets for incorrect object memory judgments, but only after congruent interference. Our findings suggest that congruent interference makes object foils appear familiar and that a network of regions, including PRC, is recruited to overcome the effects of interference.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207