Variability across subjects in free recall versus cued recall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory scientists usually compare mean performance on some measure(s) (accuracy, confidence, latency) as a function of experimental condition. Some researchers have made within-subject variability in task performance a focal outcome measure (e.g., Yao et al., 2016). Here we explored between-subject variability in accuracy as a function of experimental conditions. This work was inspired by an incidental finding in a previous study in which we observed greater variability in accuracy of memory performance on cued recall (CR) versus free recall (FR) of English animal/object nouns (Mah et al., 2023). Here we report experiments designed to assess the reliability of that pattern and to explore its causes (e.g., differential interpretation of instructions, (un)relatedness of CR word pairs, encoding time). In Experiment 1 (N = 120 undergraduates), we replicated the CR:FR variability difference with a more representative set of English nouns. In Experiments 2A (N = 117 Prolific participants) and 2B (N = 127 undergraduates), we found that the CR:FR variability difference persisted in a forced-recall procedure. In Experiment 3 (N = 260 Prolific participants), we used meaningfully related word pairs and still found greater variability in CR than FR performance. In Experiment 4 (N = 360 Prolific participants), we equated CR and FR study phases by having all participants study pairs and again observed greater variability in CR than FR. The same was true in Experiment 5 (N = 120 undergraduates), in which study time was self-paced. Comparisons of variability across subjects can yield insights into the mechanisms underlying task performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".