Recollection rejection of new items in individuals with first-episode psychosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many objects seen for the first time look familiar because they resemble known objects. To overcome this feeling of familiarity and detect novelty, memories of known objects must be recollected and compared to new objects. This experiment examines whether recollection performed when perceiving new items (i.e., recollection rejection) is abnormal in people who experienced a first episode of psychosis (FEP). Recollection of old items is impaired in this clinical population but it has not yet been demonstrated that this impairment influences the processing of new items. Eighteen FEP participants and 19 healthy controls completed an episodic memory task consisting of a study phase and a recognition phase. All the new objects looked familiar because they resembled the studied objects. Brain activity underlying false recognition and correct rejection of new objects was measured with functional resonance magnetic imaging and compared across groups. Behavioral responses to new items were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, the between-groups analysis revealed significant differences in brain activity in the left middle frontal gyrus, the left inferior parietal lobule, the right superior parietal lobule, and the right temporal fusiform gyrus during the correct rejection of new items. This activity seems related to recollection rejection and suggests that FEP patients do not normally recollect information of past events when they process new items.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".