Event-Related Potential Evidence for Age-Related Differences in Attentional Allocation During a Source Monitoring Task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while older and younger adults were engaged in a source monitoring task. After studying a list of words, participants were presented with a recognition test during which some of the new words were repeated, rendering them as familiar as the study words. Instructions at test indicated whether the goal was to select the previously studied words or the repeated test items. Behaviorally, the younger adults were less likely to make source monitoring errors. ERPs, averaged only for correct trials, indicated that younger adults produced late positivities of greatest amplitude in response to whichever word type was designated as target irrespective of its familiarity. The ERPs of the older adults were generally less differentiated and their late positivities greater for recently repeated words irrespective of target designation. These results suggest that source monitoring in young adults is facilitated by their ability to allocate and withdraw attention from stimuli on the basis of task relevance rather than familiarity alone, and that this attentional flexibility declines with age.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it