MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051182752 · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.323

Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance.

2000· article· en· W2051182752 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Celiac Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQUIETPsychologyNoise (video)AudiologyActive listeningRecallSerial position effectShort-term memoryYoung adultFree recallDevelopmental psychologyCognitionCommunicationWorking memoryCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paired associate recall was tested as a function of serial position for younger and older adults for five word pairs presented aurally in quiet and in noise. In Experiment 1, the addition of noise adversely affected recall in young adults, but only in the early serial positions. Experiments 2 and 3 suggested that the recall of older adults listening to the words in quiet was nearly equivalent to that of younger adults listening in noise. In Experiment 4, we determined the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) such that, on average, younger and older adults were able to correctly hear the same percentage of words when words were presented one at a time in noise. In Experiment 5, younger adults were tested under this S/N. Compared with older adults from Experiment 3, younger adults in this experiment recalled more words at all serial positions. The results are interpreted as showing that encoding in secondary memory is impaired by aging and noise either as a function of degraded sensory representations, or as a function of reduced processing resources.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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