Cognitively-Impaired-Not-Demented Status Moderates the Time-Varying Association between Finger Tapping Inconsistency and Executive Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Response time inconsistency (RTI) in cognitive performance predicts deleterious health outcomes in late-life; however, RTI estimates are often confounded by additional influences (e.g., individual differences in learning). Finger tapping is a basic sensorimotor measure largely independent of higher-order cognition that may circumvent such confounds of RTI estimates. We examined the within-person coupling of finger-tapping mean and RTI on working memory, and the moderation of these associations by cognitive status. METHOD: A total of 262 older adults were recruited and classified as controls, cognitively-impaired-not-demented (CIND) unstable or CIND stable. Participants completed finger-tapping and working-memory tasks during multiple weekly assessments, repeated annually for 4 years. RESULTS: Within-person coupling estimates from multilevel models indicated that on occasions when RTI was greater, working-memory response latency was slower for the CIND-stable, but not for the CIND-unstable or control individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The finger-tapping task shows potential for minimizing confounds on RTI estimates, and for yielding RTI estimates sensitive to central nervous system function and cognitive status.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".