Synchrony in Old Age: Playing the Mirror Game Improves Cognitive Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies have shown that synchronized motion between people positively affects a range of emotional and social functions. The mirror-game is a synchrony-based paradigm, common to theater, performance arts, and therapy, which includes dyadic synchronized motion, playfulness, and spontaneity. The goal of the current study is to examine the effects of the mirror-game on subjective and cognitive indices in late life. METHODS: Thirty-four older adults (aged 71-98) participated in a within-group study design. Participants conducted two sessions of 9-minute movement activities: the mirror-game and the control condition - a physical exercise class. Several measures were taken before and after experimental sessions to assess socio-emotional and attentional functions. RESULTS: The mirror-game enhanced performance on the attention sub-scale and led to faster detections of spoken words in noise. Further, it enhanced perceived partner responsiveness and led to an increase in positive reported experience. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that the mirror-game, rather than the exercise class, may have an immediate impact on mood and some attentional functions. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The mirror-game is a novel intervention, with potential benefits of social-emotional and cognitive functioning, which can be easily implemented into the daily routine care of older adults. Future studies should explore the effect of the mirror-game on additional cognitive and socio-emotional aspects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".