Age-Related Differences in Neural Activity during Item and Temporal-Order Memory Retrieval: A Positron Emission Tomography Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) was used to investigate the hypothesis that older adults' difficulties with temporal-order memory are related to deficits in frontal function. Young (mean 24.7 years) and old (mean 68.6 years) participants studied a list of words, and were then scanned while retrieving information about what words were in the list (item retrieval) or when they occurred within the list (temporal-order retrieval). There were three main results. First, whereas the younger adults engaged right prefrontal regions more during temporal-order retrieval than during item retrieval, the older adults did not. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that context memory deficits in older adults are due to frontal dysfunction. Second, ventromedial temporal activity during item memory was relatively unaffected by aging. This finding concurs with evidence that item memory is relatively preserved in old adults and with the notion that medial temporal regions are involved in automatic retrieval operations. Finally, replicating the result of a previous study (Cabeza, R., Grady, C. L., Nyberg, L., McIntosh, A. R. , Tulving, E., Kapur, S., Jennings, J. M., Houle, S., and Craik, F. I. M., 1997), the old adults showed weaker activations than the young adults in the right prefrontal cortex but stronger activations in the left prefrontal cortex. The age-related increase in left prefrontal activity may be interpreted as compensatory. Taken together, the results suggest that age-related changes in brain activity are rather process- and region-specific, and that they involve increases as well as decreases in neural activity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".