MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126667882 · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100932

Examining the development of memory for temporal context and its underlying neural processes using event-related potentials

2021· article· en· W3126667882 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathleen M. Bettencourt, Laurel H. Everett, Yixin Chen, Thanujeni Pathman

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Cognitive Neuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Event-related potentialCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceEvent (particle physics)NeuroscienceElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time is a critical feature of episodic memory-memory for events from a specific time and place (Tulving, 1972). Previous research indicates that temporal memory (memory for 'when') is slower to develop than memory for other details (e.g., 'what' and 'where'), with improvements observed across middle and late childhood. The factors that drive these changes are not yet clear. We used an event-related potential (ERP) recognition memory paradigm to investigate the underlying processes of memory for temporal context in middle to late childhood (7-9-year-olds; 10-12-year-olds) and young adulthood. Behaviorally, we observed age-related improvements in the ability to place events in temporal context. ERP analyses showed old/new effects for children and adults. We also found brain-behavior relations for 1) episodic memory (ERP mean amplitude difference between source hits and correctly identified new trials was correlated to behavioral accuracy), and 2) temporal memory (ERP mean amplitude difference between source hits and source error trials was correlated to accuracy of temporal memory judgments). This work furthers our understanding of the cognitive processes and neural signatures supporting temporal memory development in middle to late childhood, and has implications for episodic memory development more broadly.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.125 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207