Neurocognitive measures of visuospatial working memory performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the course of a day, it is often necessary for individuals to remember locations of objects in space for a short time. These tasks are accomplished using visuospatial working memory (VSWM). One of the most widely used measure of VSMW is the Corsi Block Test (Corsi, 1972) which involves recalling the location of up to 8 targets in the correct sequential order either in the same order as presented (forward) or in the opposite order (backward). The most commonly referenced indicator of memory performance is the final number of targets correctly recalled. Few studies have explored descriptors of motor behaviour (e.g. Fischer, 2001) involved in encoding and recalling target locations. In this study we were interested in extracting different metrics of motor performance that underlay memory performance. We hypothesized individuals who are more efficient at encoding the spatial locations of the targets would perform better at recalling the sequences presented to them. Thirty right-handed participants (Mage = 22.3, SD = 3.7) completed a computerized version of the Corsi Block Test. Efficiency scores were gathered by asking participants to click on the targets and measuring the distance traveled. Accuracy was measured by determining the number of correctly recalled sequences divided by the number of sequences presented to the participant. Response times and the distance travelled to each target location were also measured. Results demonstrated that individuals who achieved higher levels of accuracy in remembering the target locations in the forward direction, were typically more efficient at encoding the locations of the targets. However, the same efficiency scores could not predict the accuracy levels achieved in the backward direction. Further explorations are currently underway for identifying other predictors of memory-motor interactions in this VSWM task. We are also exploring the potential of this task for measuring the effects of sport-related concussion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".