Effects of Stimulus Modality and Response Mode on the P300 Event-Related Potential Differentiation of Young and Elderly Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The P300 event-related brain potential (ERP) was examined in 14 young (20 - 29 years of age) and 16 elderly (60 - 82 years of age) adult subjects during the performance of auditory and visual discrimination tasks requiring silent counting or key pressing in response to target stimuli. P300 latencies were longer in elderly (vs young) adults and in visual (vs auditory) tasks, and visual tasks elicited larger P300 amplitudes than auditory tasks in both age groups. Neither stimulus modality nor response mode affected P300 differentiation of young and elderly subjects. Steeper P300 anterior-posterior scalp amplitude gradients were seen in the young (vs elderly) adults, regardless of stimulus or response type. Examination of inter-subject variability with the coefficient of variation (CV) statistic found the lowest (i.e., best) CV values to be exhibited in the visual task requiring the counting of target stimuli. Implications of the findings are discussed in relation to P300 applications in the clinical assessment of dementia and aging-associated cognitive alterations.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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".