Attentional control in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attentional control, the ability to maintain goal-directedness in the face of distraction, has been shown to decline in normal aging (NA) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet the nature and extent of deficits is under debate. This study investigated attentional control in NA and AD compared to healthy young adults in several tasks such as setting, suppressing, switching, and preparing attention. METHOD: Fifty-two participants (17 AD, 17 NA, and 18 young participants) underwent the Tower of London, the Zoo map test, the Stroop test, letter verbal fluency, a computerized version of the Rule shift cards tests, the Trail making test, the Plus-minus test, and a reaction time task with variable preparatory intervals. RESULTS: Analyses of variance showed that NA as compared to young participants were impaired in the Tower of London, the Stroop test, and the Rule shift cards tests. AD as compared to NA participants were impaired in all tests except the Stroop test. Principal component analysis in young adults confirmed the modularity of attentional tasks, which was reduced in NA and AD participants. Principal component analysis in all populations showed a decline of attentional control with NA and AD regardless of the tasks, with an increase in between-participants variability only between young and NA participants. CONCLUSIONS: Attentional control dysfunction is different in NA and AD: NA affects suppressing attention, switching attention for unpredictable but not predictable events, and preparing attention for unpredictable events, whereas AD affects setting, suppressing, switching, and preparing attention with less specificity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".