Online Assessment of Individual Differences in Memory and Cognition: Risk and Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impaired episodic memory is a hallmark sign of medial temporal lobe damage from Alzheimer's disease. There is systematic variability across individuals in episodic memory capacity, particularly for autobiographical memory-or memory for events from one's life-the putative real-life correlate of laboratory tests of episodic memory, and one that is heavily dependent on visual imagery. Individuals with congenitally low episodic memory and visual imagery may have advantages on conceptual tasks that rely on abstraction of patterns across episodes. We address this hypothesis across three independent studies from our research on episodic memory, all of which included a set of tests from the Creyos battery assessing visual memory (Paired Associates), spatial working memory (Mental Rotations), deductive reasoning (Odd One Out), and syntactic/grammatical reasoning (Grammatical Reasoning). In 2357 participants tested online, trait episodic memory and visual imagery abilities were negatively correlated with computational elements of STEM professions. In 949 participants exposed to trauma, visual imagery was negatively correlated with clinical symptoms following exposure to psychological trauma. In 93 participants in a study on sleep and memory, sleep (vs. wake) and sleep spindles as measured with full polysomnography related to improvements in sequence memory for real-life events. Across all three studies, the observed findings were related to performance on the Creyos Grammatical Reasoning test (but not other Creyos measures). These findings suggest that abstract reasoning opposes episodic memory at the level of individual differences. In turn, they suggest that reasoning abilities can counteract low memory and potentially confer resilience against medial temporal lobe dysfunction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".