Is the structuring effect of environment elements on route learning absolute or relative?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction To memorize a path and then be able to retrace its steps in a new environment, one of the strategies consists in memorizing a succession of landmarks associated with a given direction. It has been shown that Alzheimer's disease (AD) leads to a deficit in memory, from the early stage of the disease [1-2]. However, health care facilities in which the studies are generally conducted have been described as poor in terms of land-marks and may thus increase disorientation. The purpose of this comparative study was to assess the structuring effect of the elements of a real environment, rich in landmarks, on learning (forward and return trips), in a population of AD and healthy control (HC) subjects. 2 Methodology Thirty subjects at mild to moderate stage of the disease and 30 matched HC underwent learning: after 1 learning (forward trip), they were asked to reproduce it in the same direction 2 times, then a third time in the opposite direction (return trip). The task was carried out in the healing garden art, memory and life of the CHRU of Nancy, designed to contribute among others, to mitigate spatial disorientation [3]. 3 Results As expected, subjects with AD committed significantly more errors than the HC, re-gardless of the trip. However, contrary to the literature data, the AD subjects did not make more mistakes in the return trip than in the forward trip, which is a more complex task [4-5]. In addition, the analysis of the location of the errors along the showed that they were not located in the same areas of the in forward and return trips. According to the qualitative analyzes, the salience of the elements of the environment but also their perceived affordance [6] (their possibilities of action) have influenced the directional choices and this in a different way according to the trip (forward-return) and the group (AD-HC). 4 Discussion After several trials, the subjects with Alzheimer have thus acquired some knowledge of the route type. The nature of the environment, rich in landmarks, seemed to favor this acquisition. To reproduce a requires, at least, memorizing a direction associated with a given place / landmark. This association was favored by the perceived affordance of the elements which depended on: 1) the point of view of the subject and thus, varied according to the direction of the trip: backward/return; 2) cognitive control abilities, and so, varied by group: HC/AD. This study shows that the elements of the environment have a structuring effect on learning performance that is not absolute but relative to these 2 factors: direction of the trip and the cognitive control abilities of the subjects.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".