Normal Aging of the Attentional Control Functions That Underlie Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effect of aging on 3 attentional control functions (ACFs)--shifting, inhibition, and updating--and on their contribution to working memory (WM) tasks. METHODS: Complex WM tasks (the Brown-Peterson procedure, the reading span, and the alpha span) and tasks used to derive composite measures of the ACFs were administered to 75 younger and 75 older adults. RESULTS: Of the 3 ACFs, only inhibition was impaired in aging after controlling for processing speed. Furthermore, the effect of aging on WM tasks was not pervasive, as older adults showed impaired performance on the Brown-Peterson procedure and the reading span but not on the alpha span. When examining the contribution of ACFs to WM in older adults, updating accounted for performance on the Brown-Peterson and reading span tasks, and inhibition was involved in performance on the alpha span task. In younger adults, it was processing speed that contributed the most to WM. DISCUSSION: This pattern of results suggests that complex WM tasks reflect different ACFs and that this varies as a function of age.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".