MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anatomical Education, Memory Consolidation and the Testing Effect

2016· article· en· W4389024584 on OpenAlexaff
Ron Easteal, Jason Biddell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Memory consolidationRecallNeocortexCognitionHippocampal formationNeurosciencePresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyHippocampusMedicineCognitive psychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As educators, anatomists must attempt to instill relevant Anatomical structures to the long‐term memory (LTM) of medical and professional students. Cognitive research tells us retrieval practice (RP) is twice as effective in accumulating LTM when compared to studying alone. RP is the recall of previously tested material by self or group testing. The increase in LTM is called the ‘testing effect’ (TE). RP is most effective when practiced a day or two after initial presentation, and repeated after intervals of a week or so. While cognitive science examines the efficacy of RP, it fails to explain a neurological rationale for those counter‐intuitive events. There is recent neuroanatomical evidence that correlates the time‐delay of acquisition with transfer of memory between the hippocampus (HPC) and the Neo‐Cortex (NC). Anatomical educators and their students will be more confident in using this powerful learning tool if they understand the correlation between RP and LTM. RP is sequenced through a series of retrieval practices following initial study/presentation (study‐RP‐RP‐RP etc.). The first interval may be a day or so, while the succeeding intervals may be evenly spaced or expanded throughout the course. Memory has 4 stages: 1. Sensory memory; 2; Working memory (WM) 3; Hippocampal consolidation (HC); and 4; LTM in the neocortex. Stages 1 and 2 last around 20 seconds. HPC consolidation and its transfer to the NC can take from 1 day to 1 month, showing that this is a direct link to RP expanding over time. HC consolidation incorporates both synaptic consolidation, and systems consolidation. Synaptic Consolidation is the strengthening and replication of synapses in the HPC and NC, making memory more robust. This process is called long‐term potentiation (LTP). Synaptic consolidation fades over time as system consolidation (SC) takes over. SC transfers representations from the HPC to the NC, thus strengthening inter‐cortical ‘crosstalk’ and stabilizing LTM. One major contributor to SC is adult neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of the HPC. Development and maturation of these new cells take place during 4 weeks, providing LTM connections to the neocortex. Another major potentiator of LTM is sleep following subject presentation. Thus, LTM facilitation is potentiated from day 2 to 1 month after presentation. R.P (as opposed to studying), acts by reactivating the cortex and bringing the representations back to the WM. The WM reactivates consolidation, ultimately reinforcing memory in the neo‐cortex. Support or Funding Information N/A

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)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207