What versus Where: Investigating how Autobiographical Memory Retrieval Differs when Accessed with Thematic versus Spatial Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autobiographical memory research has investigated how cueing distinct aspects of a past event can trigger different recollective experiences. This research has stimulated theories about how autobiographical knowledge is accessed and organized. Here, we test the idea that thematic information organizes multiple autobiographical events whereas spatial information organizes individual past episodes by investigating how retrieval guided by these two forms of information differs. We used a novel autobiographical fluency task in which participants accessed multiple memory exemplars to event theme and spatial (location) cues followed by a narrative description task in which they described the memories generated to these cues. Participants recalled significantly more memory exemplars to event theme than to spatial cues; however, spatial cues prompted faster access to past memories. Results from the narrative description task revealed that memories retrieved via event theme cues compared to spatial cues had a higher number of overall details, but those recalled to the spatial cues were recollected with a greater concentration on episodic details than those retrieved via event theme cues. These results provide evidence that thematic information organizes and integrates multiple memories whereas spatial information prompts the retrieval of specific episodic content from a past event.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".