Exploring the parameters of retrieval mode in a recognition memory task using behavioural and event-related potential methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval mode has been defined as a cognitive state that orients the cognitive system to treat items as cues for episodic memory. The present set of behavioural experiments (Experiments 1-3) and event-related potentials study (Experiment 3) sought to separate retrieval mode from other retrieval-related processes, such as retrieval success and effort, in a paradigm that cued participants to an upcoming memory task. Results were compared to performance on a cued perceptual task and on non-cued memory and perceptual tasks. The findings indicated that maintaining retrieval mode is both resource-demanding and requires processing time. ERP correlates related specifically to retrieval mode differed from both the perceptual and non-cued trials and were most evident across centroparietal electrodes during both the post-cue word onset period and test word period. Based on these results, it was concluded that posterior regions associated with item recognition memory may also be recruited in establishing and maintaining retrieval mode.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".