Effects of modality and linguistic materials on memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory and visual tests with matched word-level and sentence-level materials were compared in order to tease apart the effects of modality and linguistic factors on recall scores. Participants were 32 young adults (27 female, 5 male) in good or excellent health, who were native English speakers (mean age = 19.9 years, SD = 1.8, range 18-26) and had at least some post-secondary education. The complex auditory and visual stimuli were sentences taken from the Revised Speech Perception in Noise (RSPIN) Test materials. Participants completed each of the four tests (2 modalities x 2 linguistic levels): simple (word-level materials) auditory, complex (sentence-level materials) auditory, simple reading, complex reading. Using the total scores, recall was better for word- than for sentence-level materials by 8.9% and recall was better for auditory than for visual materials by 10.8%. There was a significant correlation between modalities for the sentence-level conditions, and a stronger correlation for word-level materials.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".