MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016549113 · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2101_5

The Development of Selective Inhibitory Control Across the Life Span

2002· article· en· W2016549113 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Claude Bedard, Shana Nichols, Jose A. Barbosa, Russell Schachar, Gordon D. Logan, Rosemary Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityHospital for Sick Children
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInhibitory controlPsychologyStop signalInhibitory postsynaptic potentialResponse inhibitionAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyLife spanTask (project management)Selective attentionNeuroscienceCognitionMedicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A modification of the stop-signal task was used to investigate the development of selective inhibitory control. A group of 317 participants, age 6 to 82 years, performed a visual choice reaction time (go) task and attempted to selectively inhibit their response to the go task when hearing one of two randomly presented tones (1000 Hz, 250 Hz), each presented on 20% of trials. Measures of response execution and inhibition were assessed by using reaction times to the go signal (GoRT) and stop signal (SSRT), respectively. Results indicated that SSRT gets faster with increasing age throughout childhood, with pronounced slowing in older adulthood. In addition, strong evidence was obtained for age-related speeding in GoRT throughout childhood, with marked slowing throughout adulthood. Subsequent hierarchical regression analyses illustrated that the age-related changes in selective inhibitory control could not be explained simply by overall slowing or speeding of responses. Findings are discussed in regard to the decay and maturation of selective inhibitory control across the life span.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations380
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuropsychologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207