The Effects of Aging and Divided Attention on Memory for Item and Associative Information.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined how aging and divided attention influence memory for item and associative information. Older adults and younger adults working under full-attention conditions and younger adults working under divided-attention conditions studied unrelated word pairs. Memory for item information was measured by later recognition of the 2nd word in the pair, and associative information was measured by recognition of the entire pair. Both older adults in the full-attention condition and younger adults in the divided-attention condition performed more poorly than younger adults in the full-attention condition, with the deficit in associative information being greater than the deficit in item information. In addition, a differentially greater associative decrement was found for the older adults, as shown by their heightened tendency to make false-alarm responses to re-paired (conjunction) distractors. The results are discussed in terms of an age-related reduction in processing resources compounded by an age-related increase in older adults' reliance on familiarity in associative recognition 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it