Rates of forgetting on three measures of verbal learning using retention intervals ranging from 20 min to 62 days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has examined age effects in rates of forgetting at short delay intervals of 20-30 min. The present study examined age effects in three verbal memory tasks at longer delay intervals of up to 62 days. Study participants consisted of 371 community-dwelling men and women comprising three age groups 20-39, 40-59, and 60-79 years. Age differences in acquisition and 20-min delayed recall were found on each of the memory tasks (paragraph, word list, and word pairs). However, all age groups showed equivalent rates of forgetting after this short delay interval. When participants were required to retain information for longer delay intervals (i.e., 1-62 days), increasing age was associated with faster rates of forgetting for day 1, but not over longer delay intervals. Age differences in rates of forgetting for longer delay intervals and the facilitating effects of prompted recall are discussed in terms of encoding and storage versus retrieval processes.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".