Age-related changes in the representational momentum effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans have a tendency to perceive motion even in static images that simply “imply” movement. This tendency is so strong that our memory for actions depicted in static images is distorted in the direction of implied motion. Freyd (1983) referred to this phenomenon as representational momentum (RM). The current study extends the work of Freyd and Finke (1984) to a healthy elderly population. In their study, three rectangles (differing in orientation) were presented sequentially in a pattern that implied clockwise rotation. Participants judged whether or not a fourth rectangle (the target) was shown in the same orientation as the third rectangle in the inducing display. The fourth rectangle was presented either in the same orientation as the third or displaced forward or backward along the path of implied rotation. Young adults showed a RM effect, responding that the target's position was further along the path of implied motion than it really was. In the present study, we replicated this effect in young adults, and went on to show that healthy elderly do not show a RM effect (p r(28) = −.393, p = .039. One-sample t-tests showed that means of young adults (M = 2.06, SD = 1.35) were significantly greater than zero, while those of young-old (ages 66–72; M = 1.36, SD = 2.31) and old-old (ages 75–86; M = –0.25, SD = 2.44) participants were not. We speculate that the reduced RM effect seen in healthy aging reflects age-related changes in areas of the brain that are involved in processing real and implied motion.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".