0117 Circadian- and Wake-Dependent Effects on Recall for Face-Name Pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The ability to remember the face and name of a person we have recently met is a critical skill often impacted by cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. We used a forced desynchrony protocol to explore whether recall of recently-learned face-name pairs is affected by time awake and/or circadian phase in healthy adults. Methods 13 healthy, cognitively normal adults (20-70yrs; 7F) participated in a 39-day inpatient protocol with 3 baseline days (10h time-in-bed/24h) and a 3-week forced desynchrony (FD) segment, where they lived on a 28-h day with sleep restriction (6.5h time-in-bed/28h, equivalent to 5.6h/24h). Core body temperature was collected throughout to estimate circadian period and phase. The face-name test was administered every 4h, beginning 3h after wake. Each test included a learning session with 6 novel face-name pairs. Recall was tested 2h later, when each face was presented twice in random order, once with a correct and once with an incorrect name. Participants were asked to respond whether each face-name pair was correct. Data were averaged across 4-h circadian phase or time awake bins and normalized as a percentage of each participant’s baseline performance. Results Face-name recall varied by time awake (p<0.05), with performance deteriorating ~12% over the course of 12h of wakefulness. Face-name recall also varied by circadian phase (p<0.05), with a ~10% difference in recall performance from the peak at circadian phase 240° (corresponding to the early biological evening) to the nadir at circadian phase 60° (corresponding to the early biological morning). Conclusion Both duration of prior wake and biological time of day impact the ability to correctly recall face-name pairs. Under normal entrained conditions, opposing circadian- and wake- dependent effects on memory for face-name associations may interact to produce stable performance across the day. Support Study supported by P01 AG009975 and conducted at Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Clinical Investigation, part of Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center supported by UL1 TR001102. Authors supported by T32HL007901 and F32HL143893 (RKY); fellowships from the Novartis Foundation, the W.&T. La-Roche Foundation, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (MYM); a fellowship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (SWC).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".