Short article: Age and synchrony effects in visuospatial working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Younger and older adults were administered a computerized version of the Corsi Block visuospatial working memory (VSWM) span task at either their peak or off-peak time of day and in either a high-interference (ascending order of administration, starting with short lists first) or low-interference (descending order, starting with longest lists first) format. Young adults' span scores were highest in the ascending format. By contrast, older adults performed better in the low-interference format, replicating findings with verbal memory span studies. Although both age groups benefited from being tested at their peak time, the advantage was far greater for older adults, but only in the low-interference format; their scores on the high-interference format were not helped by peak-time testing. These findings are consistent with the suggestion that young adults' performance on span tasks is influenced by practice and strategies, but the performance of older adults is heavily influenced by interference-which is best controlled at peak times of day. Our findings suggest that both time of testing and interference play critical roles in determining age differences in VSWM span, and both a reduction in interference and peak-time testing may be necessary to optimize older adults' performance and to maximize the reduction in age differences.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".