Elucidating the effects of ageing on remembering perceptually distorted word pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of age, background babble, and acoustic distortion of the word itself on serial position memory in a series of experiments involving six different auditory environments (quiet, and 12-talker background babble presented between, overlapping, or concurrent with word presentation or with two kinds of distortion applied to the words). To control for hearing, the level of babble or distortion was adjusted so that younger and older adults could hear the words equally well. Although the presence of continuous and word-flanking background babble adversely affected memory in the early serial positions in both age groups, only older adults' memory was adversely affected in the later serial positions. Moreover, younger adults' memory was not affected by acoustic word distortion, whereas one of the two types of temporal distortion adversely affected memory for later serial positions in older adults. The exact pattern of impairment and its interaction with age suggests that memory in older adults is more affected than that in younger adults in complex listening situations because they either need more time or have to employ more attentional resources to segregate different auditory streams, thereby depleting the pool of resources available for memory encoding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".