Exploratory factor analysis of neuropsychological tests and their relationship to the Brown–Peterson task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interference condition of the Brown-Peterson task and the auditory consonant trigrams test was designed to evaluate working memory in that it required a division of attentional processes to complete two cognitive tasks. However, the specific cognitive functions contributing to the performance of this interference task have yet to be determined. The objective of this study was to determine what other tasks are comparable to the Brown-Peterson task and conduct an exploratory factor analysis that included the measures from the Brown-Peterson task and other neuropsychological measures. A neuropsychological battery was administered to younger participants (n=107, mean age=20.83) and older participants (n=93, mean age=70.14). Factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution. Performance after the intervening serial subtraction task loaded on an auditory/visual working memory and complex attention factor and had common loadings with working memory subtests of the WAIS-III and the spatial span subtest of the WMS-III. Results suggest that the performance after the intervening serial subtraction task evaluates dual information processing, complex attention, and working memory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".