Sensory-Dependent Knowledge in Young and Elderly Adults: Argument from the Cross-Modal Priming Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of knowledge, i.e. sensory-dependent or abstract, is controversial. Growing evidence supports the existence of sensory-dependent knowledge in young individuals, but this question remains unexplored in elderly individuals. Thus the first objective of this study was to assess sensory-dependent knowledge in normal aging using a cross-modal priming paradigm. The cross-modal priming is a way to verify the nature of knowledge. However, contradictory results are reported about the existence of a cross-modal priming effect in normal aging. One possible explanation for the controversial findings is the priming task difficulty that would require too much executive resources in elderly participants and would prevent them to obtain a priming effect. Therefore, the second objective was to assess the executive involvement in the priming task. The method was based on a cross-modal priming paradigm with familiar bimodal items. First, all the sound primes were presented. For half of them, a visual abstract mask was presented simultaneously. Then, all the visual targets were processed. A battery of neuropsychological tests was administered to assess the involvement of executive functions in the priming paradigm. The results demonstrated a priming effect in the young and elderly participants, but only for the primes presented without the visual mask. The mask interference demonstrated the perceptual nature of the priming effect which supports the sensory-dependent theory of knowledge. The executive functions were correlated with the priming task only in the elderly participants. These results therefore support the task difficulty hypothesis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".