Looking the same, but remembering differently: Preserved eye-movement synchrony with age during movie watching.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naturalistic stimuli (e.g., movies) provide the opportunity to study lifelike experiences in the lab. While young adults respond to these stimuli in a highly synchronized manner [as indexed by intersubject correlations (ISC) in their neural activity], older adults respond more idiosyncratically. Here, we examine whether eye-movement synchrony (eye-ISC) also declines with age during movie-watching and whether it relates to memory for the movie. Our results show no age-related decline in eye-ISC, suggesting that age differences in neural ISC are not caused by differences in viewing patterns. Both age groups recalled the same number of episodic details from the movie, but older adults recalled proportionally fewer episodic details due to their greater output of semantic and false information. In both age groups, higher eye-ISC related to a higher proportion of internal details and a lower proportion of false information being recalled. Finally, both older and younger adults showed better cued recall for cues taken from within the same event than those spanning an event boundary, further confirming that events are stored in long-term memory as discrete units with stronger associations within than across event boundaries. Taken together, these findings suggest that naturalistic stimuli drive perception in a similar way in younger and older adults, but age differences in neural synchrony further up the information processing stream may contribute to subtle differences in event memory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".