Relational learning and transitive expression in aging and amnesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging has been associated with a decline in relational memory, which is critically supported by the hippocampus. By adapting the transitivity paradigm (Bunsey and Eichenbaum (1996) Nature 379:255-257), which traditionally has been used in nonhuman animal research, this work examined the extent to which aging is accompanied by deficits in relational learning and flexible expression of relational information. Older adults' performance was additionally contrasted with that of amnesic case DA to understand the critical contributions of the medial temporal lobe, and specifically, the hippocampus, which endures structural and functional changes in healthy aging. Participants were required to select the correct choice item (B versus Y) based on the presented sample item (e.g., A). Pairwise relations must be learned (A->B, B->C, C->D) so that ultimately, the correct relations can be inferred when presented with a novel probe item (A->C?Z?). Participants completed four conditions of transitivity that varied in terms of the degree to which the stimuli and the relations among them were known pre-experimentally. Younger adults, older adults, and DA performed similarly when the condition employed all pre-experimentally known, semantic, relations. Older adults and DA were less accurate than younger adults when all to-be-learned relations were arbitrary. However, accuracy improved for older adults when they could use pre-experimentally known pairwise relations to express understanding of arbitrary relations as indexed through inference judgments. DA could not learn arbitrary relations nor use existing knowledge to support novel inferences. These results suggest that while aging has often been associated with an emerging decline in hippocampal function, prior knowledge can be used to support novel inferences. However, in case DA, significant damage to the hippocampus likely impaired his ability to learn novel relations, while additional damage to ventromedial prefrontal and anterior temporal regions may have resulted in an inability to use prior knowledge to flexibly express indirect relational knowledge.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".