MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2788056871 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-11988

Neural Correlates of Rote Memory: Auditory Interference and Working Memory Capacity Effect Quranic Recall in Children and Young Adults Using Electroencephalography

2017· dissertation· en· W2788056871 on OpenAlexaff
Faisa Omer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyWorking memoryDistractionPsychologyRecallEvent-related potentialAudiologyCognitionTask (project management)Echoic memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study in question investigated the neural activation patterns in children and young adults who have previously memorized text from the holy Quran of the Islamic religion without understanding the Arabic language.The Quran Recognition Task (QRT) was developed to test long term memory recall and working memory capacity during electroencephalography (EEG) recording.The study examined the effect of auditory interference as a means of distraction, manipulating the processes underlying recall and recognition.16 subjects (Aged 8-27 years) participated in the study.Auditory interference was proven to significantly affect the accuracy rate for both groups (F (1, 14) = 12.34, p<.05).Significant differences in brain activation patterns and in the appearance of select event related potentials (Early sustained potentials, P300 and N400) were observed across distraction conditions, across different periods in the task presentation and between groups.Children exhibited more global activation, showing their need for more neural resources and working memory capacity to successfully complete the task while the brain activation patterns for adults depicted decreased amplitudes in the waveforms overall.The results illustrated the major differences between groups in the cognitive strategies used to complete the task.This study suggests developmental differences in the cognitive and neural approaches in retaining and recalling rote memory in a specific cultural context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→