MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981397903 · doi:10.1037/a0025926

Plasticity of inhibition in older adults: Retest practice and transfer effects.

2011· article· en· W1981397903 on OpenAlex
Andrea Wilkinson, Lixia Yang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRyerson University
KeywordsPsychologyStroop effectCognitionYoung adultClinical psychologyAnalysis of varianceDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed plasticity of inhibition in older adults through examining retest practice effects in a six-session training paradigm using the Stroop task and the training-induced transfer effects to a range of cognitive measures. Fifty-six older adults (aged 60-84 years, mean = 71.05, standard deviation = 6.17) participated in this study. They were evenly assigned to one of four groups: summary feedback, individualized and adaptive feedback, no-feedback, or a no-contact control group. The results suggest that older adults are able to improve inhibition across retest sessions but unable to transfer the retest practice effects to other tasks. In addition, the improvement is not item specific and feedback does not appear to moderate the magnitude of the training benefits; however, feedback does appear to reduce interference variance across retest practice sessions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.281 · 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