Executive function deficits in persons with mild cognitive impairment: A study with a Tower of London task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed executive functions in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) using the Tower of London (TOL). A second objective was to study the impact of three types of problem selected according to the presence or absence of a "trigger." A trigger (T) is an incitation to the participant, at the first move, to move a ball to its final position according to the model. A positive trigger (T+) is helpful, while a negative trigger (T-) creates an obstruction. Some problems have no trigger (N). This study includes 81 participants with MCI. After follow-up, one year later, two subgroups were distinguished: (a) 51 (63%) participants did not convert or decline (stable MCI); (b) 30 (37%) participants showed significant decline or progressed to dementia (decliner MCI). Persons with MCI were compared to an older adult group matched with respect to sex, age, and education. For the successes, there was a significant group difference between the three types of problem. The post hoc analysis showed that T+ took significantly less time than N or T-. There were significantly more successes for T+ than N, and these two types of problem had more success than T-. For "total number of moves," there was no significant difference between the groups. In post hoc analysis, T- involved more moves than N or T+. In qualitative analysis, T- MCI decliners produced significantly more rule breakings than the stable MCI and controls. A dysfunction in self-monitoring is a characteristic feature of persons with MCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".