Auditory presentation at test does not diminish the production effect in recognition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three experiments investigated whether auditory information at test would undermine the relational distinctiveness of vocal production at study, diminishing the production effect. In Experiment 1, with visual presentation during study, the production effect was equivalently large regardless of whether participants read each test word out loud prior to making their recognition decision. In Experiment 2, incorporating auditory presentation during study, the production effect was unaltered by whether recognition test words were presented visually or auditorily. In Experiment 3, the authors manipulated whether presentation was visual or auditory both at study and at test. Once again, presentation modality at test did not affect the size of the production effect, although the effect was significantly smaller when words were presented auditorily at study. These experiments demonstrate that production at the time of study stands out as distinct above and beyond auditory information. Moreover, this distinct aloud information need not "stand out" against a background of silent unstudied words on a recognition test. Consistent with the distinctiveness account, encoding via production enhances later recognition consistently, regardless of study or test modality. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".