MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113073255 · doi:10.1111/psyp.12034

Retrospective attention enhances visual working memory in the young but not the old: An <scp>ERP</scp> study

2013· article· en· W2113073255 on OpenAlex
Audrey Duarte, Patricia Hearons, Yashu Jiang, Mary Courtney Delvin, Rachel N. Newsome, Paul Verhaeghen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPsychologyWorking memoryExpectancy theoryTask (project management)Young adultCognitive psychologyAudiologyEvent-related potentialSensory cueDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceCognitionSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral evidence from the young suggests spatial cues that orient attention toward task-relevant items in visual working memory (VWM) enhance memory capacity. Whether older adults can also use retrospective cues ("retro-cues") to enhance VWM capacity is unknown. In the current event-related potential (ERP) study, young and old adults performed a VWM task in which spatially informative retro-cues were presented during maintenance. Young but not older adults' VWM capacity benefited from retro-cueing. The contralateral delay activity (CDA) ERP index of VWM maintenance was attenuated after the retro-cue, which effectively reduced the impact of memory load. CDA amplitudes were reduced prior to retro-cue onset in the old only. Despite a preserved ability to delete items from VWM, older adults may be less able to use retrospective attention to enhance memory capacity when expectancy of impending spatial cues disrupts effective VWM maintenance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.290 · 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