MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030307537 · doi:10.1037/a0017798

Neural underpinnings of within-person variability in cognitive functioning.

2009· article· en· W2030307537 on OpenAlexafffund
Stuart MacDonald, Shu Li, Lars Bäckman

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersVetenskapsrådetMax-Planck-GesellschaftMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsNeurocognitivePsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceNeuromodulationNeural correlates of consciousnessExtant taxonEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased intraindividual variability (IIV), reflecting within-person fluctuations in behavioral performance, is commonly observed in aging as well as in select disorders including traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dementia. Much recent progress has been made toward understanding the functional significance of IIV in cognitive performance (MacDonald, Nyberg, & Bäckman, 2006) and biological information processing (Stein, Gossen, & Jones 2005), with parallel efforts devoted to investigating the links between older adults' deficient neuromodulation and their more variable neuronal and cognitive functions (Bäckman, Nyberg, Lindenberger, Li, & Farde, 2006). Despite these advances in the study of IIV, there has been little empirical examination of underlying neural correlates and virtually no synthesis of extant findings. The present review summarizes the accumulating empirical evidence linking age-related increases in IIV in cognitive performance to neural correlates at anatomical, functional, neuromodulatory, and genetic levels. Computational theories of neural dynamics (e.g., Li, Lindenberger, & Sikström, 2001) are also introduced to illustrate how age-related neuromodulatory deficiencies may contribute to increased neuronal noise and render information processing in aging neurocognitive systems to be less robust. The potential benefits of stochastic resonance and external noise are also discussed with respect to processing subthreshold stimuli (e.g., Li, von Oertzen, & Lindenberger, 2006). We conclude by highlighting important challenges and outstanding research issues that remain to be answered in the study of IIV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations368
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207