Bells Test: Are there differences in performance between adult groups aged 40-59 and 60-75?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether differences exist between groups of Brazilian adults aged 40-59 and 60-75 in respective performance on the Bells Test, given the dearth of literature investigating the relationship between focused visual attention and the age factor. METHODS: Eighty-four neurologically healthy adults (half aged 40-59 and half 60-75) with high educational level (40-59 years group: M=17.75 years' education; SD=4.00; 60-75 years group: M=15.85 years education; SD=3.19) were assessed using the Bells Test. Data on accuracy and processing speed were compared between groups by ANCOVA, controlled for the covariates education and frequency of reading and writing habits. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the age groups. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that aging influences sustained and focused attention and speed processing after 75 years of age on visual cancellation paradigms, when executive and attentional changes tend to be more marked. Further studies should investigate healthy older and oldest-old adults, as well as groups with low and intermediate educational backgrounds. In addition, Brazilian clinical populations should also be characterized, particularly those with neurological disorders that might have visual hemineglect.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".