MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069925502 · doi:10.1080/13854046.2013.873082

Normative Data for a Computer-Assisted Version of the Auditory Three-Consonant Brown-Peterson Paradigm in the Elderly French-Quebec Population

2014· article· en· W2069925502 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brandy L. Callahan, Sylvie Belleville, Guylaine Ferland, Olivier Potvin, M. Tremblay, Carol Hudon, Joël Macoir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité LavalHôpital Charles-Le MoyneInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeRecallPercentileAudiologyTrigramPopulationConsonantCeiling effectPsychologyTest (biology)StatisticsConfidence intervalSpeech recognitionCognitive psychologyDemographyComputer scienceMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Brown-Peterson task is used to assess verbal short-term memory as well as divided attention. In its auditory three-consonant version, trigrams are presented to participants who must recall the items in correct order after variable delays, during which an interference task is performed. The present study aimed to establish normative data for this test in the elderly French-Quebec population based on cross-sectional data from a retrospective, multi-center convenience sample. A total of 595 elderly native French-speakers from the province of Quebec performed the Memoria version of the auditory three-consonant Brown-Peterson test. For both series and item-by-item scoring methods, age, education, and, in most cases, recall after a 0-second interval were found to be significantly associated with recall performance after 10-second, 20-second, and 30-second interference intervals. Based on regression model results, equations to calculate Z scores are presented for the 10-second, 20-second and 30-second intervals and for each scoring method to allow estimation of expected performance based on participants' individual characteristics. As an important ceiling effect was observed at the 0-second interval, norms for this interference interval are presented in percentiles.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207