Interference From Previous Distraction Disrupts Older Adults' Memory
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previously relevant information can disrupt the ability of older adults to remember new information. Here, the researchers examined whether prior irrelevant information, or distraction, can also interfere with older adults' memory for new information. METHOD: Younger and older adults first completed a 1-back task on pictures that were superimposed with distracting words. After a delay, participants learned picture-word paired associates and memory was tested using picture-cued recall. In 1 condition (high interference), some pairs included pictures from the 1-back task now paired with new words. In a low-interference condition, the transfer list used all new items. RESULTS: Older adults had substantially lower cued-recall performance in the high- compared with the low-interference condition. In contrast, younger adults' performance did not vary across conditions. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that even never-relevant information from the past can disrupt older adults' memory for new associations.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it