Examining prepotent response suppression in aging: A kinematic analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were designed to explore how age differences in conflict detection may contribute to poorer motor performance. In each experiment, 12 young adults (YAs) and 12 older adults (OAs) performed a finger sequencing task in which the frequency of specific critical transitions was varied. These critical transitions were contrasted with violation transitions to assess the ability to detect a conflict in response requirements. In addition to accuracy and reaction time, the authors used kinematic data to parse movements into planning and motor execution phases. OAs were differentially slower to respond to violations than YAs, in line with other research on executive control, prepotent response suppression, and aging. Kinematic analyses revealed that YAs executed movements more rapidly on violation than critical transitions, whereas OAs executed movements at the same speed regardless of response predictability and increased planning time. The authors argue that OAs are unable to reprogram prepotent movement plans to overcome slowed movement planning in cognitively challenging situations. The results are discussed in terms of the influence of age-related cognitive inefficiency on motor control.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".