Age-related differences in the impact of mind-wandering and visual distraction on performance in a go/no-go task.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal performance in many tasks requires minimizing the impact of both visual distraction and mind-wandering. Yet, so far, these two types of distraction have been studied in isolation and it remains unclear whether they act in similar or dissociable ways across age groups. Here, we studied the impact of visual distraction and mind-wandering on performance in a go/no-go task in young and older adults. Older adults reported higher task focus than young, which was associated with a specific age-related reduction in mind-wandering, rather than to thoughts triggered by the task. Older adults exhibited fewer no-go errors, higher mean reaction time (RT) and reduced RT variability compared to young adults. In contrast, visual distraction was associated with a disproportionate effect in older versus young adults on go accuracy, mean RT, and RT variability. Decreasing task focus was similarly associated with reduced go- and no-go accuracy and increased RT variability across age groups. In summary, our results suggest that whereas older adults are disproportionately affected by visual distraction compared to young, they exhibit a reduction in mind-wandering frequency. Moreover, the impact of decreasing task focus on task performance is similar across age groups. Our results suggest a dissociation of the impact of visual distraction and mind-wandering as a function of age. (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.
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".