Age differences in tactile pattern recognition at the fingertip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young (21-26 years, n=20) and old (55-86 years, n=25) participants were tested for their ability to recognize raised letters (6-mm high, 1-mm relief) by touch. Spatial resolution thresholds were also measured with grating domes to derive an index of the degree of afferent innervation at the fingertip. Letter recognition in the young group was very consistent and highly accurate (mean, 86% correct), contrasting with the performance of the old group, which was more variable and comparatively low in accuracy (mean, 53% correct). In both groups, spatial resolution thresholds accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in the performance, suggesting a strong link between age-dependent variations in tactile innervation and recognition accuracy. The patterns of errors in the old group showed that an inability to encode internal elements specific to certain letters was at the source of most confusion among letters. Whether this inability reflected only deficient peripheral encoding mechanisms or some other alterations at the central level is 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".