MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539339930 · doi:10.1002/dev.21472

Anticipatory eye movements and long‐term memory in early infancy

2016· article· en· W2539339930 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Wong-Kee-You, Scott A. Adler

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyMnemonicEye movementCognitive psychologyGazeTerm (time)Long-term memoryShort-term memoryDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceWorking memoryCognitionPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in our understanding of long-term memory in early infancy have been made possible by studies that have used the Rovee-Collier's mobile conjugate reinforcement paradigm and its variants. One function that has been attributed to long-term memory is the formation of expectations (Rovee-Collier & Hayne, 1987); consequently, a long-term memory representation should be established during expectation formation. To examine this prediction and potentially open the door on a new paradigm for exploring infants' long-term memory, using the Visual Expectation Paradigm (Haith, Hazan, & Goodman, 1988), 3-month-old infants were trained to form an expectation for predictable color and spatial information of picture events and emit anticipatory eye movements to those events. One day later, infants' anticipatory eye movements decreased in number relative to the end of training when the predictable colors were changed but not when the spatial location of the predictable color events was changed. These findings confirm that information encoded during expectation formation are stored in long-term memory, as hypothesized by Rovee-Collier and colleagues. Further, this research suggests that eye movements are potentially viable measures of long-term memory in infancy, providing confirmatory evidence for early mnemonic processes.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207