Dissociation of Measures of Topographical and Non-topographical Cognitive Ability in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between topographical and non-topographical cognitive measures was studied for 25 elderly participants. The topographical measures were the Camden Topographical Recognition Memory Test (CTRMT), a Topographical Mental Rotation Test (TMRT), and a Virtual Pond Maze (VPM). The non-topographical tests were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Trail-Making Test-B (TMT-B), and a matching-to-sample Visual Short-Term Memory Test (VSMT). Only the correlation (0.48) between the TMT-B and the TMRT attained significance; the bivariate correlations among the three topographical measures were modest, ranging from 29 to 33, although they did correlate highly with a topographic composite score (0.69-0.78). A factor analysis yielded a further distinction between the topographical and non-topographical measures. Loadings for the three topographical measures on a presumed “topographical” factor ranged from 0.62 to 0.71 but only from 0.17 to 0.23 for the second factor. The MoCA and TMT-B loaded on both factors, while the VSMT measure loaded poorly (-0.03) on the topographical factor but highly (0.89) on the second factor. The results suggest that standard measures of cognitive function may not be optimal for specific assessment of topographical abilities, the best predictor of impending Alzheimer’s dementia.
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".