Rethinking Memory Impairments: Retrieval Failure
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
A canonical view in the neuroscience of learning and memory literature is that failures in memory expression reflect storage failures, and hence amnesic manipulations following training or following memory reactivation can permanently erase memory traces. In this review, we analyse extant literatures from the learning and memory domains suggesting that most if not all of these memory deficits can be restored with the appropriate retrieval cues. We contend that all experience-dependent manipulations conducted immediately after training or following memory reactivation result in new learning, which interferes with the original learning and hence makes information highly dependent on retrieval cues for memory expression. Thus, although acquisition and storage mechanisms are surely important, memory retrieval is a critical component of memory performance, with numerous findings from behavioural and neurobiological studies all converging on this general stance. These conclusions invite a rethinking of the learning and memory literatures and provide new avenues for research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.007 |
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