Episodic memory, concentrated attention and processing speed in aging: A comparative study of Brazilian age groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropsychological studies on the processing of some specific cognitive functions throughout aging are essential for the understanding of human cognitive development from ages 19 to 89. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to verify the occurrence of differences in the processing of episodic memory, concentrated attention and speed of attentional processing among four age groups of adults. METHODS: A total of 136 neurologically healthy adults, aged 19-89, with 9 or more years of schooling, took part in the study. Participants were divided according to four age groups: young, middle-aged, elderly and oldest old adults. Subtests of the Brief Neuropsychological Evaluation Instrument (NEUPSILIN) were applied for the cognitive assessment. Mean score of corrected answers and of response times were compared between groups by means of a one-way ANOVA test with post-hoc Scheffe procedures and ANCOVA including the co-variables of years of schooling and socio-economical scores. RESULTS: In general, differences in performance were observed from 60 years old on. Only the episodic memory task of delayed recall reflected differences from the age of around 40 onwards and processing speed from around the age of 70 onwards. Thus, differences were found between the age groups regarding their cognitive performance, particularly between young adults and elderly adults, and young adults and oldest old adults. CONCLUSIONS: Our research indicates that the middle-aged group should be better analyzed and that comparative cross-sectional studies including only extreme groups such as young and elderly adults are not sufficient.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".