Aging and Vigilance: Who Has the Inhibition Deficit?
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
The present study compared 18 younger (M = 21.00 years) and 17 older adults (M = 64.29 years) in a modified vigilance task that required the inhibition of a routinized response. The task was a 50-min simulation of industrial inspection, wherein observers were presented with simple displays labeled "good" and "bad" parts. General linear modeling indicated that younger adults showed a doubling of inhibition failures over time (from 19% to 43%); older adults' inhibition failures held constant at approximately 17.5%. In both age groups, those who responded most quickly were also most error-prone. A control experiment, using the traditional vigilance task requiring a response to infrequent "bad" parts, found only small age differences in accuracy and these also favored older adults. This research suggests that younger adults may demonstrate larger inhibition failures when the routinized responses on simple tasks must be suppressed. There are several implications for theory, industrial design, and cognitive assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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