Size of rhythm-groups affects the memory trace of heard words in utterances: results from a pilot study using evoked potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since speech involves fleeting acoustic events some portions of heard utterances must be parsed and stored on-line in order to be interpreted.Our previous work has shown that in recalling novel series, rhythmic grouping of up to 4 syllables facilitates memory, and this corresponds to size limits on rhythm groups observed in speech.Such results suggest that prosodic groups can correspond to the natural parsing frameworks of memory processing.The present study further investigates this correspondence by means of an event-related potential technique.It has been established that the quality of memory traces of words is associated with variations in the amplitude of the N400 component.We show that variations in the amplitude of the N400 confirm for one subject that words presented in rhythm groups that do not exceed a 4syllable limit present a better quality of memory trace than words presented in groups of 5 syllables, which rarely occur in speech and do not facilitate recall.Though the present observations are preliminary, our results converge on the point that prosodic grouping can be linked to mnemonic processes and that restrictions on memory may underlie size limits on prosodic groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".