Spatial learning efficiency and error monitoring in normal aging: An investigation using a novel hidden maze learning test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared 19 older adults and 20 younger adults on the Groton Maze Learning Test((c)) (GMLT), a novel computerized hidden maze learning test that assesses processing speed, spatial learning efficiency, and error monitoring. Convergent validity of this test was assessed by comparing GMLT scores to Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) and Tower of Toronto (TOT) scores. In the full sample, all GMLT measures correlated strongly with both PASAT and TOT scores (r's=0.53 to 0.73). GMLT measures most sensitive to detecting between-group differences were the Timed Chase Test (TCT), legal errors, and perseverative errors (Cohen's d's=3.81, 2.40, and 2.40, respectively). Scores on the visuomotor processing speed subtest of the GMLT attenuated the relationship between age group and maze efficiency index scores, but not perseverative and "rule-break" errors. These results suggest that normal aging is associated with impaired performance on a novel computerized measure of spatial learning efficiency and error monitoring, and that processing speed attenuates the relationship between age and spatial learning efficiency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".