Emphasizing temporal and semantic associations from encoding affects free recall at retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paradigms using the free recall of word lists have furthered our understanding of the organizational structure of memory by elucidating the role of contextual associations on memory search. These studies have provided evidence supporting the relationship between the strength of contextual reinstatement and overall memory performance at recall. In the current study, we adapted the traditional word list-learning paradigm to investigate whether emphasizing certain contextual associations between list items would influence subsequent retrieval. Specifically, we introduced a review period between the initial encoding and recall of word lists where items were repeated in an order that highlighted either the temporal or semantic associations at encoding. We found that a temporal review period led to stronger temporal clustering compared to a semantic or a random baseline review period, and a semantic review period led to stronger semantic clustering compared to a temporal or random baseline review period. Moreover, participants recalled more list items when semantic associations were emphasized, with the degree of clustering at recall predicting memory performance. These results demonstrate that emphasizing contextual associations during a review period after initial encoding can affect subsequent memory organization and recall.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".