Dual-Task Performance in Early Stage Dementia: Differential Effects for Automatized and Effortful Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attentional functions of individuals with early stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) and normal older adults (NC) were studied using a concurrent-task paradigm. Fourteen patients (5 men, 9 women) and 14 age- and sex-matched normal adults engaged in speeded unimanual tapping and speaking tasks during single- and dual-task trials. Speaking tasks were either relatively automatized (Speech Repetition) or relatively effortful (Speech Fluency). As single-task tapping rates were slower for the AD participants than for the NC participants, a proportional decrement score was used as an index of interference in the dual-task conditions. Interference during concurrent-task performance was greater when the cognitive task was effortful for both the NC and the AD groups. Although AD patients suffered higher levels of interference than NC participants while performing the effortful speech task, the two groups showed equivalent small changes in tapping speed while combining the automatized speaking and tapping tasks. Results suggest that a general-purpose attentional processing resource declines in the early stages of AD but dual-task performance is well-maintained when the component tasks are relatively automatized.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".