A New Measure of Mnemonic Discrimination Applicable to Recognition Memory Tests With Continuous Variation in Novel Stimulus Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mnemonic discrimination (MD) involves distinguishing new stimuli from highly similar memories; it is impaired in the elderly and individuals with neuropsychiatric disorders and may also probe hippocampal dentate gyrus function. Measuring MD is, therefore, highly relevant; however, the gold-standard MD test, the mnemonic similarity task (MST), is rarely used in clinical research. Thus, it would be useful to develop a novel MD index applicable to recognition memory tasks that are commonly used in clinical research. The present study develops such a measure and demonstrates its convergent validity with the gold-standard MD index from the MST. METHODS: We derived participant-level indices of MD (λ) and overall recognition memory performance (Δ) by fitting a logistic function to the relationship between stimulus interference and the probability of classifying a stimulus as novel. We then applied these novel measures to two independent MST datasets (N = 18; N = 67) and to simulated MST data. We used linear mixed-effects model to test whether (1) λ predicts the MST's MD measure, the lure discrimination index (LDI), and (2) Δ predicts the MST's overall recognition memory index (REC). RESULTS: λ predicted LDI (β = 0.76, 95% CI [0.62, 0.91], p < 0.001) but not REC (β = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.15], p = 0.197), while Δ predicted REC (β = 0.93, 95% CI [0.83, 1.02], p < 0.001) but not LDI (β = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.09], p = 0.438). The λ and Δ indices were statistically independent, although simulations with synthetic data suggest that MD measurement may be compromised if overall recognition memory performance is impaired. CONCLUSION: We have developed a novel measure of MD applicable to two-choice recognition memory tasks that use stimuli with continuously varying degrees of similarity. Future studies should further validate this measure using large clinical datasets that include both MD and other recognition memory tasks.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".