The ontogeny of memory persistence and specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the ontogeny of memory blossomed in the twentieth century following the initial observations that memories from infancy and early childhood are rapidly forgotten. The intense exploration of infantile amnesia in subsequent years has led to a thorough characterization of its psychological determinants, although the neurobiology of memory persistence has long remained elusive. By contrast, other phenomena in the ontogeny of memory like infantile generalization have received relatively less attention. Despite strong evidence for reduced memory specificity during ontogeny, infantile generalization is poorly understood from psychological and neurobiological perspectives. In this review, we examine the ontogeny of memory persistence and specificity in humans and nonhuman animals at the levels of behavior and the brain. To this end, we first describe the behavioral phenotypes associated with each phenomenon. Looking into the brain, we then discuss neurobiological mechanisms in the hippocampus that contribute to the ontogeny of memory. Hippocampal neurogenesis and critical period mechanisms have recently been discovered to underlie amnesia during early development, and at the same time, we speculate that similar processes may contribute to the early bias towards memory generalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".