MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112480519 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2020.1843593

Language and memory: an investigation of the relationship between autobiographical memory recall and narrative production of semantic and episodic information

2020· article· en· W3112480519 on OpenAlexafffund
Bruna Seixas Lima, Kelly J. Murphy, Angela K. Troyer, Brian Levine, Naida L. Graham, Carol Léonard, David F. Tang‐Wai, Sandra E. Black, Elizabeth Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaBaycrest HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAutobiographical memoryRecallNarrativePsychologySemantic memoryCognitive psychologyEpisodic memoryCognitive scienceLinguisticsCognitionPhilosophyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The production of autobiographical narratives requires linguistic structures and the ability to access and generate both semantic information and episodic details of personal events.Aims: This study investigated autobiographical narratives produced by individuals with established semantic memory impairments (semantic variant primary progressive aphasia; svPPA) or episodic memory impairments (amnestic mild cognitive impairment; aMCI) in order to investigate whether different categories of memory impairment would manifest different linguistic deficits.Methods & Procedures: We used the Autobiographical Interview and Quantitative Production Analysis methods to investigate linguistic production during autobiographical recall. Additional investigations compared the production of present and past tense inflections in order to look for morpho-syntactic differences in the sets of episodic and semantic information.Outcomes and Results: The results showed that individuals with svPPA produced fewer well-formed sentences when producing episodic details and produced fewer past tense inflections when producing semantic details in comparison to healthy controls. The aMCI group produced fewer episodic utterances but produced a larger number of words in the set of semantic details, in comparison to healthy controls.Conclusions: It is possible that specific demands related to the type of message being conveyed, or high cognitive load during retrieval of episodic information may affect the narration process. Difficulty in the retrieval of episodic information is likely related to reduced production of episodic utterances in individuals with aMCI and may be related to deficits in linguistic production in svPPA. We propose that the results in the set of semantic details are connected to previous findings relating to semantic memory and deficits in discourse coherence in both groups.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAphasiologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207