AGING AND WORKLOAD CAPACITY: DO OLDER ADULTS INTEGRATE VISUAL STIMULI DIFFERENTLY THAN YOUNGER ADULTS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of aging on response times and on the processing capacity of redundant-visual signals is a neglected theme in the study of aging. In the redundant target design (RTD), an observer detects the presence of a target. A trial can include two (redundant), single, or no-targets. Do older-adults integrate visual stimuli differently than younger-adults? A new approach to capacity (Townsend & Nozawa, 1995) compares the processing of single- and redundant-target trials to compute an index of workload capacity. We discuss the implication of various theories of aging on Townsend’s capacity coefficient: Generalized cognitive slowing models with a single age-related slowing equation for all trials; Information degradation models linking sensory loss with cognitive tasks; and Models assuming a decrease in the efficiency of inhibiting distractors. Experimentally, we compare target- detection latencies and Townsend’s capacity for younger- and older-adults in RTD, examining the effects of distractor presence and absence for both groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".