Name and Face Learning in Older Adults: Effects of Level of Processing, Self-Generation, and Intention to Learn
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
Many older adults are interested in strategies to help them learn new names. We examined the learning conditions that provide maximal benefit to name and face learning. In Experiment 1, consistent with levels-of-processing theory, name recall and recognition by 20 younger and 20 older adults was poorest with physical processing, intermediate with phonemic processing, and best with semantic processing. In Experiment 2, name and face learning in 20 younger and 20 older adults was maximized with semantic processing of names and physical processing of faces. Experiment 3 showed a benefit of self-generation and of intentional learning of name-face pairs in 24 older adults. Findings suggest that memory interventions should emphasize processing names semantically, processing faces physically, self-generating this information, and keeping in mind that memory for the names will be needed in the future.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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