MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546505069 · doi:10.1037/neu0000327

N400 effects of semantic richness can be modulated by task demands.

2016· article· en· W2546505069 on OpenAlexafffund
Rocío A. López Zunini, Louis Renoult, Vanessa Taler

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsN400PsychologyCategorizationSemantic memoryTask (project management)Context (archaeology)Cognitive psychologySemantic similaritySemantics (computer science)Event-related potentialNatural language processingCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic richness is a multidimensional construct that can be defined as the amount of semantic information associated with a concept. OBJECTIVE: To investigate neurophysiological correlates of semantic richness information associated with words and its interaction with task demands. METHOD: Two different dimensions of semantic richness (number of associates and number of semantic neighbors) were investigated using event-related potentials (ERPs) in lexical decision (LDT) and semantic categorization tasks (SCT) using the same stimuli in 2 groups of participants (24 in each group). RESULTS: The amplitude of the N400 ERP component, which is associated with semantic processing, was smaller for words with a high number of associates (p = .003 at fronto-centro-parietal sites) or semantic neighbors (p < .03 at centro-parietal sites) than for words with a low number of associates or number of semantic neighbors, in the LDT but not the SCT. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the effects of semantic richness vary with task demands and may be used in a top-down manner to accommodate the current context. (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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207