MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916452285 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000001215

Phase of electroencephalography theta oscillation during stimulus encoding affects accuracy of memory recall

2019· article· en· W2916452285 on OpenAlexaff
Afrooz Jalali, Matthew S. Tata, Aaron J. Gruber, Artur Luczak

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyRecallPsychologyStimulus (psychology)MemorizationPerceptionCognitionNeuroscienceEncoding (memory)AudiologyBrain activity and meditationCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oscillatory activity is a ubiquitous property of brain signals, and yet relatively few studies have investigated how the phase of such ongoing oscillations affects our cognition. One of the main findings in this field is that the phase of electroencephalography (EEG) in the alpha band can affect perception of milliseconds-long stimuli. However, the importance of the phase of EEG for processing more naturalistic stimuli, which have a much longer duration, is still not clear. To address this question here, we presented word-nonword pairs, each of which was visible for 5 s and measured the effect of EEG phase during stimulus onset on later memory recall. The task consisted of an encoding (learning) phase in which 20 novel word-nonword pairs were presented, followed by a test phase in which participants were shown one of the seen words with four target nonwords to choose from. We found that memory recall performance was higher when the words during encoding were presented at a descending phase of the theta oscillation. This effect was the strongest in the frontal cortex. These results suggest that the phase of ongoing cortical activity can affect memorization of seconds-long stimuli that are an integral part of many daily tasks.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207