Area:
Cognitive Psychology
We are testing a new system for linking grants to scientists.
The funding information displayed below comes from the
NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and the
NSF Award Database.
The grant data on this page is limited to grants awarded in the United States and is thus partial. It can nonetheless be used to understand how funding patterns influence mentorship networks and vice-versa, which has deep implications on how research is done.
You can help! If you notice any innacuracies, please
sign in and mark grants as correct or incorrect matches.
Sign in to see low-probability grants and correct any errors in linkage between grants and researchers.
High-probability grants
According to our matching algorithm, Stephen Dopkins is the likely recipient of the following grants.
| Years |
Recipients |
Code |
Title / Keywords |
Matching
score |
| 2002 — 2005 |
Dopkins, Stephen C |
R01Activity Code Description:
To support a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area representing his or her specific interest and competencies. |
Suppression in Simple Recognition Memory @ George Washington University
DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): This project will seek to understand an accessibility deficit that accompanies acts of simple recognition memory. When a target word is recognized as belonging to a memory set, other non-target words in the set become less accessible. The project will take as its working hypothesis that the accessibility deficit reflects a process of suppression. Suppression functions to ameliorate interference that accompanies recognition of the target word. The interference in question is only present when the target word belongs to a subset within the memory set. As part of the process by which the target word is recognized, competition occurs among the members of this candidate set; suppression of non-target members of the candidate set promotes recognition of the target member. The project will pursue three specific objectives. 1) Rule out accounts of the accessibility deficit that do not involve a process of suppression. 2. Marshal positive support for the working hypothesis by a) verifying the proposed relationship between the suppression of non-target words and the occurrence of competition among the members of the candidate set, and b) confirming the predictions of the hypothesis as to the time course of the suppression. 3. Flesh out the working hypothesis by a) refining the conception of the candidate set, and b) choosing between two views of the suppression process, one of which is based on the concept of lateral inhibition, the other of which is based on a more flexible notion of inhibition.
|
0.958 |