Time of day effects on the use of distraction to minimise forgetting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research found that implicit rehearsal of distraction can reduce forgetting for older adults, in part due to their inefficient regulation of irrelevant information. Here, we investigated whether young adults' memory can also benefit from critical information presented as distraction. Participants recalled a list of words initially and then again after a 15-min delay, with some of the critical studied words exposed as distraction during the delay. We tested young adults at an optimal versus non-optimal time of day, the latter a condition intended to mirror patterns of those with reduced attention regulation. We also varied task instruction to assess whether awareness of an upcoming memory task would influence implicit rehearsal of distraction. The task instruction manipulation was ineffective, but desynchronising time of testing and period of optimal cognitive arousal resulted in a memory benefit. Young adults tested at a non-optimal time showed minimal forgetting of words repeated as distraction, while those tested at an optimal time showed no memory benefit for these items, consistent with research suggesting that attention regulation is greatly affected by circadian arousal.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".