MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009836096 · doi:10.1080/09084280701319912

The Effects of Practice on Speed of Information Processing Using the Adjusting-Paced Serial Addition Test (Adjusting-PSAT) and the Computerized Tests of Information Processing (CTIP)

2007· article· en· W2009836096 on OpenAlex
Bill Baird, Thomas N. Tombaugh, Margaret A. Francis

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyTest (biology)Information processingCognitionComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments were conducted to determine the effects of practice on the Adjusting-Paced Serial Addition Task (Adjusting-PSAT) (Tombaugh, 1999 Tombaugh , T. N. ( 1999 ). Administrative Manual for the Adjusting-Paced Serial Addition Test (Adjusting-PSAT) . Carleton University , Ottawa , Ontario . [Google Scholar]) and the Computerized Tests of Information Processing (CTIP) (Tombaugh & Rees, 2000 Tombaugh , T. N. , & Rees , L. ( 2000 ). Administrative Manual for the Computerized Tests of Information Processing (CTIP) . Carleton University , Ottawa : Ontario . [Google Scholar]). The Adjusting-PSAT is a computerized modification of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) (Gronwall, 1977 Gronwall , D. ( 1977 ). Paced Auditory Serial-Addition Task: A measure of recovery from concussion . Perceptual and Motor Skills , 44 , 367 – 373 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) that makes the interval between digits contingent on the correctness of the response. This titration procedure permits a threshold value to be derived that represents the shortest presentation interval in which a person can process the digits to produce the correct sum. The CTIP consists of three reaction time tests that are progressively more difficult. Results showed that robust practice effects occurred with the Adjusting-PSAT, with the greatest increase in performance occurring on the first retest trial. Practice effects were equally prominent regardless of whether the first retest trial occurred 20 min, 1 week, or 3 months after the first administration. These gains were maintained for periods up to 6 months and were independent of modality of presentation (visual or auditory) and type of number list (easy or hard). In contrast to the findings with the Adjusting-PSAT, only minimal practice effects were observed with the CTIP. The major clinical implication of the study is that the high reliability coefficients for the CTIP, the lack of anxiety associated with its administration, and its insensitivity to variables such as numerical and verbal ability make the CTIP ideally suited for the serial evaluation of cognitive status. These characteristics also make the CTIP a viable alternative to the Adjusting-PSAT or PASAT for measuring speed of information processing. If the Adjusting-PSAT is administered repeatedly in clinical evaluations, a “dual baseline” or “run in” procedure should be used, with the second administration serving as the baseline measurement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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