Egocentric and allocentric spatial memory in healthy aging: performance on real-world tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although normal aging has been related to several cognitive difficulties, other processes have been studied less, such as spatial memory. Our aim was to compare egocentric and allocentric memory in an elderly population using ecological tasks. Twenty-eight cognitively unimpaired participants performed Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Memory Tasks, as well as Spatial Span from CANTAB, Benton's Judge of Line Orientation test (JoLO), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA). The results revealed that younger participants showed better performance than older participants on both the Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Memory Tasks, although only the Egocentric test was able to discriminate between younger, middle, and older elderly participants. Learning effect was found in Allocentric Spatial Memory Task in younger and older groups, but not in the middle group. Allocentric and egocentric performance was not related to other visuospatial neuropsychological scores and gender did not influence performance in any task. Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Memory Tasks may be useful tools in early screening for cognitive decline, as they are able to detect age differences in the cognitive unimpaired elderly population.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".