Implicit Proactive Interference, Age, and Automatic Versus Controlled Retrieval Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the extent to which implicit proactive interference results from automatic versus controlled retrieval among younger and older adults. During a study phase, targets (e.g., "ALLERGY") either were or were not preceded by nontarget competitors (e.g., "ANALOGY"). After a filled interval, the participants were asked to complete word fragments, some of which cued studied words (e.g., "A_L_ _GY"). Retrieval strategies were identified by the difference in response speed between a phase containing fragments that cued only new words and a phase that included a mix of fragments cuing old and new words. Previous results were replicated: Proactive interference was found in implicit memory, and the negative effects were greater for older than for younger adults. Novel findings demonstrate two retrieval processes that contribute to interference: an automatic one that is age invariant and a controlled process that can reduce the magnitude of the automatic interference effects. The controlled process, however, is used effectively only by younger adults. This pattern of findings potentially explains age differences in susceptibility to proactive interference.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".