MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984095632 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igz038.1032

MEMORY FOR PICTURES AND WORDS AFTER A NATURAL DISASTER

2019· article· en· W2984095632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katie E. Cherry, Katelyn McKneely, Quyen P. Nguyen, Shui Yu, Laura Sampson, Sandro Galea, Matthew Calamia, Emily M. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionBaton rougeRecallPsychologyFree recallNatural disasterMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentCognitive psychologyGeographyPsychiatryHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The pictorial superiority effect (PSE) is the finding that memory for pictures exceeds that of memory for matching words for people of all ages (Cherry et al., 2012). We examined free recall of line drawings and matching words in adults enrolled in the LSU Flood Study, an interdisciplinary study of disaster stress and cognition. We tested the hypothesis that disaster stress would be associated with deficits in memory for pictures and words. Participants were sampled from a three-parish (county) region of Baton Rouge, LA that was severely devastated by the 2016 flood (N = 202, age range: 18-88 years). They received multiple tests, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; Nasreddine et al., 2005), and self-report measures of executive function and functional impairment (Barkley, 2011). Three groups were compared: (1) non-flooded adults as controls, (2) once-flooded adults with structural damage to homes and property in 2016, and (3) twice-flooded adults who had relocated to Baton Rouge because of catastrophic losses in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and flooded again in 2016. Results yielded a PSE in free recall for all disaster exposure groups (p < 0.001). Follow-up analyses by age group revealed that older adults showed the same memorial advantage of pictures relative to words as did their younger counterparts across all disaster exposure groups. These results imply that single and multiple disaster exposures do not appear to disrupt cognition assessed with traditional, laboratory-based measures. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award Number 1708090).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207