How much basic science content do second-year medical students remember from their first year?

While most medical students generally perform well on examinations and pass their courses during the first year, we do not know how much basic science content they retain at the start of their second year and how that relates to minimal competency set by the faculty. In the fall of 2014, before starting their second-year courses, 27 medical students volunteered to participate in a study of long-term retention of the basic sciences by taking a "retention exam" after a delay of 5-11 months. The overall mean performance when the students initially answered the 60 multiple choice questions (MCQs) was 82.8% [standard deviation (SD) = 7.4%], which fell to 50.1% (SD = 12.1%) on the retention exam. This gave a mean retention of 60.4% (SD = 12.8%) with the retention for individual students ranging from 37 to 81%. The majority of students (23/27; 85%) fell below the minimal level of competency to start their second year. Medical educators should be more aware of the significant amount of forgetting that occurs during training and make better use of instructional strategies that promote long-term learning such as retrieval practice, interleaving, and spacing.

Voodoo and circularity errors.

We briefly describe the circularity/non-independence problem, and our perception of the impact the ensuing discussion has had on fMRI research.

Target templates in low target-distractor discriminability visual search have higher resolution, but the advantage they provide is short-lived.

When you search repeatedly for a set of items among very similar distractors, does that make you more efficient in locating the targets? To address this, we had observers search for two categories of targets among the same set of distractors across trials. Visual and conceptual similarity of the stimuli were validated with a multidimensional scaling analysis, and separately using a deep neural network model. After a few blocks of visual search trials, the distractor set was replaced. In three experiments, we manipulated the level of discriminability between the targets and distractors before and after the distractors were replaced. Our results suggest that in the presence of repeated distractors, observers generally become more efficient. However, the difficulty of the search task does impact how efficient people are when the distractor set is replaced. Specifically, when the training is easy, people are more impaired in a difficult transfer test. We attribute this effect to the precision of the target template generated during training. In particular, a coarse target template is created when the target and distractors are easy to discriminate. These coarse target templates do not transfer well in a context with new distractors. This suggests that learning with more distinct targets and distractors can result in lower performance when context changes, but observers recover from this effect quickly (within a block of search trials).

Taxing executive processes does not necessarily increase impulsive decision making.

A link has been established between impulsivity in real-world situations and impulsive decision making in laboratory tasks in brain-damaged patients and individuals with substance abuse. Whether or not this link exists for all individuals is less clear. We conducted an experiment to determine whether taxing central executive processes with a demanding cognitive load task results in impulsive decision making in a normal sample. Participants (n = 53) completed a delay discounting task under the presence (load condition) and absence (control condition) of a demanding generation task. Results indicated that taxing working memory is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce impulsive decision making; instead, the demanding generation task resulted in an increase in the number of inconsistent choices.