MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891329418 · doi:10.14336/ad.2017.1223

Age-related Deficits in Recognition Memory are Protocol-Dependent

2018· article· en· W2891329418 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAging and Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerirhinal cortexRecognition memoryMemory impairmentNeurosciencePsychologyCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionHippocampal formationCognitive psychologyObject (grammar)CognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perirhinal cortex (PRh) is a critical mediator of recognition memory, and a wealth of evidence points to impairment in PRh function with age. Despite this evidence, age-related deficits in recognition memory are not consistently observed. This may be partially due to the fact that older animals also have well-established deficits in hippocampal function, and many protocols that assess perirhinal function are also sensitive to hippocampal damage. When using one of these protocols, spontaneous object recognition in an open field, we are able to replicate published age-related deficits using pairs of complex objects. However, when using zero-delay object recognition, a task that is more resistant to the influence of changes in hippocampal function, we find no significant age-related differences in recognition memory in the same animals. These data highlight the importance of the protocol used for testing recognition memory, and may place constraints on the role of the PRh in age-related recognition memory impairment as it is typically tested in much of the literature.

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.

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 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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.234 · 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