MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917702484 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01384

Multielement Episodic Encoding in Young and Older Adults

2019· article· en· W2917702484 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor James, M. Natasha Rajah, Audrey Duarte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPsychologyEpisodic memoryEncoding (memory)Developmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research on age-related associative memory deficits has generally focused on memory for single associations. However, our real-world experiences contain a multitude of details that must be effectively integrated and encoded into coherent representations to facilitate subsequent retrieval of the event as a whole. How aging interferes with the processes necessary for multielement encoding is still unknown. We investigated this issue in the current fMRI study. While undergoing scanning, young and older adults were presented with an occupation and an object and were asked to judge how likely the two were to interact, either in general or within the context of a given scene. After scanning, participants completed recognition tasks for the occupation-object pairs and the sources/contexts with which the pairs were studied. Using multivariate behavioral partial least squares analyses, we identified a set of regions including anterior pFC and medial-temporal lobes whose activity was beneficial to subsequent memory for the pairs and sources in young adults but detrimental in older adults. An additional behavioral partial least squares analysis found that, although both groups recruited anterior pFC areas to support context memory performance, only in the young did this activity appear to reflect integration of the occupation, object, and scene features. This was also consistent with behavioral results, which found that young adults showed greater conditional dependence between pair and context memory compared with older adults. Together, these findings suggest that binding and/or retrieving multiple details as an integrated whole becomes increasingly difficult with age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207