TAG-ME again: A serious game for measuring working memory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BrainTagger (demo version: researcher-demo.braintagger.com) is a suite of Target Acquisition Games for Measurement and Evaluation (TAG-ME). Here we introduce TAG-ME Again, a serious game modeled after the well-established N-Back task, to assess working memory ability across three difficulty levels corresponding to 1-, 2-, and 3-back conditions. We also report on two experiments aimed at assessing convergent validity with the N-Back task. Experiment 1 examined correlations with N-Back task performance in a sample of adults (n = 31, 18–54 years old) across three measures: reaction time; accuracy; a combined RT/accuracy metric. Significant correlations between game and task were found, with the strongest relationship being for the most difficult version of the task (3-Back). In Experiment 2 (n = 66 university students, 18–22 years old), we minimized differences between the task and the game by equating stimulus-response mappings and spatial processing demands. Significant correlations were found between game and task for both the 2-Back and 3-Back levels. We conclude that TAG-ME Again is a gamified task that has convergent validity with the N-Back Task.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it