Age-Related Differences in Brain Activity Underlying Working Memory for Spatial and Nonspatial Auditory Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used functional magnetic resonance imaging and a 1-back task to assess working memory (WM) for spatial (sound location) and nonspatial (sound category) auditory information in younger and older adults. A mixed block-event-related design was used to measure sustained activity during each task block and transient activity to targets (repetitions of location or category). In both groups, there was increased sustained activity for category WM in left anterior temporal cortex and inferior prefrontal cortex (PFC) and increased activity for location WM in right inferior parietal cortex and dorsal PFC. There were no reliable age differences in this pattern of activity. Older adults had more sustained activity than younger adults in left PFC during both tasks, suggesting that additional PFC recruitment in older adults reflects nonspecific engagement of frontally mediated task-monitoring processes. Both groups showed lower transient than sustained activity in auditory cortex bilaterally; however, older adults showed smaller target-related reductions of activity during the category task. A greater reduction of activity to category targets in left auditory cortex was associated with better performance on this task in older adults, suggesting that a failure to modulate activity appropriately when a stimulus is repeated, or when a particular feature of the stimulus is repeated, could lead to reduced ability to detect this repetition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".