Older Adults Show Less Flexible Spatial Cue Use When Navigating in a Virtual Reality Environment Compared With Younger Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily life requires accurate navigation, and thus better understanding of aging on navigational abilities is critical. Importantly, the use of spatial properties by older and younger adults remains unclear. During this study, younger and older human adults were presented with a virtual environment in which they had to navigate a series of hallways. The hallways provided 2 general types of spatial information: geometric, which included distance and directional turns along a learned route, and featural, which included landmarks situated along the route. To investigate how participants used these different cue types, geometric and/or landmark information was manipulated during testing trials. Data from 40 younger (20 women) and 40 older (20 women) adults were analyzed. Our findings suggest that (1) both younger and older adults relied mostly on landmarks to find their way, and (2) younger adults were better able to adapt to spatial changes to the environment compared with older adults.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it