MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093450839 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.566391

Reliability of P3 Event-Related Potential During Working Memory Across the Spectrum of Cognitive Aging

2020· article· en· W3093450839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannes Devos, Jeffrey M. Burns, Ke Liao, Pedram Ahmadnezhad, Jonathan D. Mahnken, William M. Brooks, Kathleen M. Gustafson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIntraclass correlationAudiologyCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychologyWorking memoryEvent-related potentialLatency (audio)Cognitive declineConfidence intervalConfoundingDementiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive impairmentDevelopmental psychologyMedicineInternal medicineNeurosciencePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 with a vast range of cognitive ability 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. The main aim was to evaluate stability of the ERP on grand averaged task effects for both visits in the total sample (n = 39). Secondary aims were to evaluate the effect of age, group (non β-amyloid elevated; β-amyloid elevated, cognitively impaired), cognitive status (MOCA), and task difficulty on ERP reliability. 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 to lesser extent P3 peak latency, provide a stable measure of electrophysiological processes in older individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207