MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097633037 · doi:10.1167/jov.20.11.837

Is there an impact of low-level visual properties on long-term memory interferences?

2020· article· en· W3097633037 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Maxime Larouche, Valérie Daigneault, Clémentine Pagès, Philippe Laliberté, Frédéric Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySet (abstract data type)PerceptionCognitive psychologyFace (sociological concept)Task (project management)Temporal lobeSimilarity (geometry)CommunicationPattern recognition (psychology)NeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have shown that low-level perceptual similarity does not predict interferences in memory. These studies all used protocols that promote declarative learning by the medial temporal lobe. However, we know that low-level brain regions demonstrate neuronal plasticity resulting also from rewards conveyed by the striatum, which—unlike the medial temporal lobe—receives and sends information almost everywhere in the brain, including V1. Thus, the purpose of this study was to test whether low-level visual properties (spatial frequencies and orientations) influence interferences in memory by using a task that promotes response-stimuli association by the striatum. On day 1, two subject groups (N=45) learned to discriminate two sets of 12 target faces from 20 different non-target faces (with auditory feedbacks). The two target face sets were filtered by the same log-polar checkerboards in the Fourier domain in subject group 1 while they were filtered by different, non-overlapping log-polar checkerboards in subject group 2. To promote associations between low-level properties and response, the non-target faces were also filtered by another non-overlapping log-polar checkerboard; thus making low-level properties useful for solving the task. On day 2, subjects had to discriminate between three alternatives: target face set 1, target face set 2 and novel non-target faces. We compared interferences — confusions between target face set 1 and 2 — in subject group 1 and group 2. H0 predicts no differences between subject groups, whereas H1 predicts a greater number of interferences in subject group 1 than group 2 because the group 1 target face sets produce more similar activations in V1. Bayesian analyses indicate substantial evidence (Bf01 = 3.4) in favor of H0, thereby supporting the idea that low-level visual properties do not impact interferences in memory, even when learning is based on a response-stimuli association.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.347
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.117 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→