MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361856293 · doi:10.1037/xlm0001226

Modeling verbal short-term memory: A walk around the neighborhood.

2023· article· en· W4361856293 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean Saint‐Aubin, Marie Poirier, James M. Yearsley, Jean‐Michel Robichaud, Dominic Guitard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptimal distinctiveness theoryRecallPsychologyTerm (time)Cognitive psychologyShort-term memorySemantic memoryPsycINFOEpisodic memorySemantics (computer science)CognitionComputer scienceSocial psychologyWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When remembering over the short-term, long-term knowledge has a large effect on the number of correctly recalled items and little impact on memory for order. This is true, for example, when the effects of semantic category are examined. Contrary to what these findings suggest, Poirier et al. in 2015 proposed that memory for order relies on the level of activation within long-term networks. Importantly, although their view has been criticized, they showed that manipulating semantic associations led to item migrations that were atypical. In this article, we show that similar migrations can be obtained with another knowledge-based factor: orthographic neighborhood. In three experiments, we manipulated the orthographic neighborhood of to-be-recalled items. The latter is a sublexical factor; as such, it is much less likely than semantic relatedness to involve demand characteristics or grouping strategies. The first experiment established that the neighborhood manipulation produced the pattern of item migrations previously observed with semantic relatedness, confirming that the migration effect can generalize to other variables. The last two experiments suggested that migrations were due to the features shared across list items rather than to item co-activation (as in Poirier et al.). The results were successfully modeled by calling upon the Revised Feature Model, where recall depends on selecting a retrieval candidate based on the features of the cueing information. Overall, our findings underline the usefulness of a model where retrieval is determined by relative distinctiveness and underline that multiple mechanisms can lead to order errors in recall. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and CognitionSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207