The role of suppression in resolving interference: Evidence for an age-related 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
Difficulty with memory retrieval is a salient feature of cognitive aging and may be related to a reduction in the ability to suppress items that compete for retrieval. To test this hypothesis directly, we presented a series of words for shallow coding that included pairs of orthographically similar words (e.g., ALLERGY and ANALOGY). After a delay, participants solved word fragments (e.g., A _ L _ _ GY) that resembled both words in a pair but could only be completed by one. We measured the consequence of having successfully resolved competition by having participants read a list of words including the rejected competitors as quickly as possible. Response time was compared with control conditions that did not require resolving competition. Older adults showed no evidence of suppression; instead they showed priming for the competitors, in sharp contrast to strong suppression effects previously observed in younger adults. Whereas previous studies have provided clear evidence for suppression deficits by examining the ability to produce targets in high interference situations, here we provide direct evidence for a suppression deficit by examining the accessibility of rejected competitors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it