Long-term maintenance of multiple task inhibition practice and transfer effects in older adults: A 3.5-year follow-up.
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
This study is a follow-up to our previous work (Wilkinson & Yang, 2016a), with an intention to examine the long-term maintenance of inhibition practice benefits and the associated near-near transfer effects over a 3.5-year period in older adults. Thirty-six participants from the original multiple task inhibition practice study (Wilkinson & Yang, 2016a), 18 from the practice and 18 from the control group, returned to complete a single follow-up session on the practice and the near-near transfer tasks. The results revealed that after a 3.5-year delay, older adults were able to retain practice benefits in both deletion (i.e., 2-Back) and restraint (i.e., Go-No Go) tasks. Furthermore, 44-65% of the original near-near transfer benefits were retained across all three inhibitory subfunctions at the follow-up session over baseline performance. The findings further extend the literature on the durability of practice and transfer effects of inhibition in older adults. Specifically, the current study demonstrates the long-term practice maintenance in some inhibitory subfunctions (e.g., deletion and restraint tasks) and highlights the retention of near-near transfer gains following a 3.5-year delay in older adults. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it