The Walking Corsi Test (WalCT): A Normative Study of Topographical Working Memory in a Sample of 4- to 11-Year-Olds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report normative data on topographical working memory collected through the Walking Corsi Test (WalCT; Piccardi et al., 2008 Piccardi, L. , Iaria, G. , Ricci, M. , Bianchini, F. , Zompanti, L. , & Guariglia, C. (2008). Walking in the Corsi test: Which type of memory do you need? Neuroscience Letters , 432 , 127–131.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) for developing a standard administration procedure to be used in clinical and educational practice. A total of 268 typically developing Italian children aged 4–11 years performed both WalCT and Corsi Block-Tapping Test (CBT; Corsi, 1972 Corsi, P. M. (1972). Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain . McGill University, Montreal: Unpublished doctoral dissertation. [Google Scholar]) a well-known visuo-spatial memory test. WalCT has already been validated in adults, demonstrating sensitivity in detecting topographical memory deficits even in individuals who have no other memory impairments. Our results showed that age, but not sex, affected performances. Both girls and boys had a larger span on the CBT than the WalCT. The youngest group did not differ in performing WalCT and CBT, but from 5.6 years of age children performed better on CBT than WalCT, suggesting that memory in reaching space develops before topographical memory. Only after 5 years of age do children learn to process specifically topographical stimuli, suggesting that this happens when their environmental knowledge becomes operational and they increase environmental independence. We also discuss the importance to introduce WalCT in the clinical assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".