Effect of environmental clutter on attention performance in hoarding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clients with hoarding disorder (HD) frequently complain of problems with attention, and they are often easily distracted during decluttering efforts in the clinic or at home. In contrast, standardized tests of attention performance have not shown consistent impairment of attention. This study examined the role of a testing environment that simulated the disorganized visual array of a hoarded home. Participants (N = 162) completed neurocognitive tests (including a Continuous Performance Test), a diagnostic interview, and self-report questionnaires. Hoarding symptom severity correlated fairly strongly (r = 0.68) with self-reported ADHD symptoms. Participants who met criteria for HD (n = 61) reported substantially higher ADHD symptoms (d = 1.35) compared with 55 participants who were classified as healthy controls. Both hoarding diagnosis and symptom severity were associated with greater declines in vigilance during trials that involved longer (boring) pauses between stimuli, more frequent erroneous responses to non-targets (commission errors), and poorer performance on auditory attention and working memory, but these effects were quite small in comparison with the effect size for self-reported ADHD symptoms. The cluttered environment did not affect attention performance. Overall, findings suggest subsequent research should focus on the question of persistence in the context of boredom or negative affect.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it