Reliability of P3 Event-Related Potential during Working Memory Across the Spectrum of Cognitive Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Event-related potentials (ERPs) offer unparalleled temporal resolution in tracing distinct electrophysiological processes related to normal and pathological cognitive aging. The stability of ERPs in older individuals, who inherently show more intraindividual variability in cognitive functions, has not been established. In this test-retest reliability study, 39 older individuals (age 74.10 (5.4) years; 23 (59%) women; 15 non β-amyloid elevated, 16 β-amyloid elevated, 8 cognitively impaired) with scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) ranging between 3 and 30 completed a working memory (n-back) test with three levels of difficulty at baseline and two-week follow-up. Stability of the ERP was evaluated on grand averaged task effects for both visits. P3 peak amplitude and latency were measured in frontal channels. P3 peak amplitude at Fz, our main outcome variable, showed excellent reliability in 0-back (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95% confidence interval = 0.82 (0.67 – 0.90) and 1-back (ICC = 0.87 (0.76 – 0.93), however, only fair reliability in 2-back (ICC = 0.53 (0.09 – 0.75). Reliability of P3 peak latencies was substantially lower, with ICCs ranging between 0.17 for 2-back and 0.54 for 0-back. Generalized linear mixed models showed no confounding effect of age, group, or task difficulty on stability of P3 amplitude and latency of Fz. By contrast, MOCA scores tended to negatively correlate with P3 amplitude of Fz (p=0.07). We conclude that P3 peak amplitude and latency provide a stable measure of electrophysiological processes in older individuals. However, impaired cognition may affect the stability of the ERP response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".