MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022166976 · doi:10.3917/anpsy1.202.0175

Children’s working memory develops at similar rates for sequences differing in compressibility

2020· article· en· W3022166976 on OpenAlexaff
Fabien Mathy, Michaël Fartoukh, Ori Friedman, Nicolas Gauvrit, Alessandro Guida

Bibliographic record

VenueL’Année psychologique · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsWorking memoryStimulus (psychology)CognitionPsychologyTask (project management)Developmental psychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyArithmeticMathematicsNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the causes of working memory maturation is a global issue in developmental cognitive psychology. The question has most often been addressed by manipulating stimulus types within participants. In the present experiment, we instead addressed this question by examining development in children’s working memory using a single stimulus type. Primary school children aged 6 to 10 years (total N = 256) participated in a task inspired by the game Simon®. Children saw sequences of colored squares presented one-at-a-time, and then attempted to reproduce the sequences in the correct order. Some sequences were simple and contained regularities that made them compressible, while other sequences were more complex and less compressible. We found that children’s memory for both kinds of sequences improved with age. However the ratio between children’s memory for simple and complex sequences did not substantially change with age. These findings suggest that storage capacity of working memory increases in middle childhood, but that children’s ability to optimize storage by compressing sequences remains stable across this age range.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL’Année psychologiqueSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207