Speed isn't everything: complex processing speed measures mask individual differences and developmental changes in executive control
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 rate at which people process information appears to influence many aspects of cognition across the lifespan. However, many commonly accepted measures of 'processing speed' may require goal maintenance, manipulation of information in working memory, and decision-making, blurring the distinction between processing speed and executive control and resulting in overestimation of processing speed contributions to cognition. This concern may apply particularly to studies of developmental change, as even seemingly simple processing speed measures may require executive processes to keep children and older adults on task. We report two new studies and a re-analysis of a published study, testing predictions about how different processing speed measures influence conclusions about executive control across the lifespan. We find that the choice of processing speed measure affects the relationship observed between processing speed and executive control, in a manner that changes with age, and that choice of processing speed measure affects conclusions about development and the relationship among executive control measures. Implications for understanding processing speed, executive control, and their development are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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