If you write it down, does it really mean you remember it?: the effects on explicit versus implicit memory of peripheral brand placements in a video game context
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
This thesis investigated the memory effects associated with peripheral brand placements in video games. Two memory constructs were measured. Implicit memory was characterized as an incidental form of retention, rarely impacted by tested manipulations. Conversely, explicit memory was defined as retention achieved through associations with spatio-temporal contexts and easily deteriorated by experimental treatment. Specifically, this research attempted to address how players process brand information and which type of memory was most commonly used to retrieve this peripheral information from a competitive video game? Two hundred and twenty-eight males played a sports video game for 15-minutes and then conducted a virtual survey in a laboratory setting at the University of Guelph. The dependent variables were the two key memory constructs: implicit memory (as measured by word stem completion, word fragment completion and anagram solution tests) and explicit memory (as measured by unaided brand recall, brand name recognition and brand logo recognition tests). The independent variables manipulated were attention-orienting instruction to the peripheral brands and motivation to win. Results showed that both implicit and explicit memory constructs were improved with the addition of attention-orienting instructions. While only explicit memory was reduced under the competitive motivation. This research suggests that explicit measurement of advertising effectiveness has understated its overall impact.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it