MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412439366 · doi:10.1167/jov.25.9.2661

The influence of motor reinstatement and drawing quality on remembering

2025· article· en· W4412439366 on OpenAlexaff
Tasha Ignatius, Gerome A. Manson, J. Randall Flanagan, Jeffrey D. Wammes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyQuality (philosophy)PhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creating drawings of information can provide elaborative, pictorial, and motor cues that facilitate later retrieval from memory, but the contribution of motor information remains unclear. To test this, we had participants encode words via drawing using a robotic manipulandum. 10 mins (E1) or 1-2 days (E2) later, they completed a visual recognition task while the robotic manipulandum guided their arm through predetermined motor paths. Unbeknownst to participants, the paths were either congruent (motor reinstatement) or incongruent (interference) with their drawing of the current target word. Response time was consistently fastest with motor reinstatement, indicating that reactivating an encoded motor path made visual recognition more efficient regardless of the delay between encoding and reinstatement. However, while E1 revealed that passive reinstatement improved recognition accuracy, this benefit disappeared with the longer delay in E2. Drawings were submitted to a pretrained neural network (NN), and E1 revealed that higher-quality drawings (i.e. those more easily identified by the NN) were better recognized, regardless of reinstatement condition, but again, this pattern disappeared with the longer delay. The collective findings demonstrate that passive motor reinstatement reliably increases the speed of memory retrieval, but that any influence on accuracy is transient. Using principal components analysis (PCA) we identified two components in NN features that were associated with better memory, and these were consistent across experiments, indicating that there were predictable features that lead to more memorable drawings. Ongoing work will determine whether changes in the level of motor engagement, quality and timing of reinstatement change the observed benefit to memory. Together, these results emphasize the influence of the quality and type of encoded features as well as the timing of reinstatement in influencing memory 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicArt Education and Development→French-language works237,207→