MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105502913 · doi:10.1093/geronb/58.5.p256

Adult Age Differences in the Time Course of Inhibition of Return

2003· article· en· W2105502913 on OpenAlexafffund
Alan D. Castel, Alison L. Chasteen, Charles T. Scialfa, Jay Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsInhibition of returnFacilitationStimulus (psychology)Cued speechAudiologyPsychologyYoung adultEarly adulthoodDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceVisual attentionPerceptionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibition of return (IOR) occurs when people are slower to detect a target that appeared at a previously cued location. Prior research has shown that younger and older adults display similar amounts of IOR, but this research has not examined the time course of the process. Because elderly people may be slower to engage or disengage spatially based attention, the present experiment examined age differences in IOR at stimulus-onset asynchronies ranging from 50 ms to 3,000 ms. The results show that the peak magnitude of IOR was similar for younger and older adults, but the onset of IOR occurred approximately 300 ms later in elderly persons. Older adults also showed a greater degree of facilitation at shorter stimulus-onset asynchronies. The results suggest that there is a change in the temporal dynamics of inhibition that occurs with 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207