MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W141160907 · doi:10.1177/155005940403500408

Event-Related Potentials in Young and Elderly Adults during a Visual Spatial Working Memory Task

2004· article· en· W141160907 on OpenAlexaff
Verner Knott, Anne Millar, Louise Dulude, Lisa Bradford, Fahad Alwahhabi, Tim Lau, Catherine Shea, Andrew Wiens

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent-related potentialWorking memoryAudiologyPsychologySlownessCognitionLatency (audio)Spatial memoryRecognition memoryPathologicalYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyTask (project management)NeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The P300 event-related brain potential (ERP) was examined in 14 young (20-29 years of age) and 16 elderly (60-82 years of age) subjects during the performance of a visuospatial memory task requiring recognition of locations. Elderly and young adults exhibited similar recognition accuracy, but recognition reaction times were significantly slower in the elderly. Midline P300 amplitudes recorded in response to visuospatial probe stimuli were significantly attenuated in the elderly, and, depending on the nature of the probe, P300 latency-derived indices indicated that both cognitive and motoric slowness characterized visuospatial recognition in the aged. The results, discussed in relation to neural mechanisms supporting working memory function, suggest that alterations in attention and processing speed may play a role in visual-spatial working memory deficits associated with normal and pathological aging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207