The effects of age on associative and rule-based causal learning and generalization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed how age influences associative and rule-based processes in causal learning using the Shanks and Darby (1998) concurrent patterning discrimination task. In Experiment 1, participants were divided into groups based on their learning performance after 6 blocks of training trials. High discrimination mastery young adults learned the patterning discrimination more rapidly and accurately than moderate mastery young adults. They were also more likely to induce the patterning rule and use this rule to generate predictions for novel cues, whereas moderate mastery young adults were more likely to use cue similarity as the basis for their predictions. Like moderate mastery young adults, older adults used similarity-based generalization for novel cues, but they did not achieve the same level of patterning discrimination. In Experiment 2, young and older adults were trained to the same learning criterion. Older adults again showed deficits in patterning discrimination and, in contrast to young adults, even when they reported awareness of the patterning rule, they used only similarity-based generalization in their predictions for novel cues. These findings suggest that it is important to consider how the ability to code or use cue representations interacts with the requirements of the causal learning task. In particular, age differences in causal learning seem to be greatest for tasks that require rapid coding of configural representations to control associative interference between similar cues. Configural coding may also be related to the success of rule-based processes in these types of learning tasks.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".