Multiple Temporal and Semantic Processes During Verbal Fluency Tasks in English-Russian Bilinguals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Category fluency test (CFT) performance is sensitive to cognitive processes of executive control and memory storage and access, and widely used to measure cognitive performance especially in early Alzheimer’s Disease. Analytical variables have included the number of items named, and various methods to identify and quantify clusters of semantically related words and cluster switches. Also encoded in the response sequence are temporal patterns as shown by “bursts” of responses and pauses between items, that have not been received attention in determining cluster characteristics. We studied a group of 51 adult Russian-English bilinguals and compared CFT responses based on two clustering methodologies: the semantic-based method (SEM) and a novel method based on the time interval between words (TEMP) with 8 different intercall time thresholds from 0.25 sec-15 sec. Each participant performed the task in both languages. Total number of words and cluster count was greater in Russian than English for both scoring methods, but cluster size did not differ between languages. We also studied stochastic modeling characteristics based on detrending of the “exponential exhaustion” effect seen with CFT, with most notable that total recall capacity (N∞) was greater in Russian than English (P<.05). Multiple demographic variables, and recent and lifetime usage of each language, affected both cognitive performance as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA; given in English only). Differential performance is driven by differences in demographics, more words stored in memory, and semantic and timing recall strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".