MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047287036 · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21490

Overrecruitment in the Aging Brain as a Function of Task Demands: Evidence for a Compensatory View

2010· article· en· W2047287036 on OpenAlexafffund
Antonino Vallesi, Anthony R. McIntosh, Donald T. Stuss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)CognitionCognitive psychologyColoredMultivariate statisticsNeural correlates of consciousnessFunction (biology)Go/no goNeuroscienceComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used fMRI to investigate the neural effects of increasing cognitive demands in normal aging and their role for performance. Simple and complex go/no-go tasks were used with two versus eight colored letters as go stimuli, respectively. In both tasks, no-go stimuli could produce high conflict (same letter, different color) or low conflict (colored numbers) with go stimuli. Multivariate partial least square analysis of fMRI data showed that older adults overengaged a cohesive pattern of fronto-parietal regions with no-go stimuli under the specific combination of factors which progressively amplified task demands: high conflict no-go trials in the first phase of the complex task. This early neural overrecruitment was positively correlated with a lower error rate in the older group. Thus, the present data suggest that age-related extra-recruitment of neural resources can be beneficial for performance under taxing task conditions, such as when novel, weak, and complex rules have to be acquired.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations108
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207