MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232530984 · doi:10.1167/15.12.77

A guess today may be a strategic error tomorrow: Predicting intra-individual differences in visual working memory

2015· article· en· W4232530984 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Wilson, April Au, Jenny Shen, Julie Ardron, Justin Ruppel, Gillian Einstein, Susanne Ferber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memorySwap (finance)PsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCognitionNeuroscienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inter-individual differences in visual working memory (VWM) are well documented, however, there has been less work exploring intra-individual differences or how VWM processes may fluctuate over time in healthy young adults. It has also been documented that VWM is impacted by changes in female sex hormones in menopausal woman, however, these hormones also fluctuate across the monthly cycle in young woman, granted to a lesser extent. Given the high prevalence of female participants in the majority of VWM studies, understanding whether there are in fact intra-individual changes in VWM performance over the monthly cycle may not only provide a novel contribution to the discussion of fixed vs. flexible capacities in VWM, but may also help explain unreplicable results or inconsistencies in the literature. Here, we compared performance on a VWM colour-wheel task in women at two time-points (at menstruation and ovulation). Employing the 3-component swap model of VWM (Bays, Catalao, & Husain, 2009), we estimated measures of probability of target, non-target (swaps between target and non-target items), and guess responses, addressing the question of whether VWM performance varies over time within individuals and whether this is due to changes in the number of target responses or the types of errors made. Interestingly the probability of target response did not differ between the two time-points, however, the types of errors did. When VWM is at capacity (load 4 and 6) women made more swap errors at ovulation and more guesses at menstruation. These results suggest that the amount of information held in VWM may increase at ovulation but this results in more interference, with no concomitant increase in target responses. These results reveal the presence of intra-individual differences in VWM performance (types of errors made) that follow cyclical patterns in the monthly hormone cycle in young woman. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.104 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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