Implicit processes enhance cognitive abilities in mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that older adults with typical age-related memory changes (i.e., without cognitive impairment) pick up irrelevant information implicitly, and unknowingly use that information when it becomes relevant to a later task. Here, we address the possibility that implicit processes play a similarly beneficial role in the cognitive abilities of individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Twenty-two individuals with aMCI and 22 matched controls participated in a picture judgment task while instructed to ignore distractions in the form of word/non-word letter strings. Memory for the distracting words was later tested with a word-fragment completion task. Both groups showed a priming effect, that is, they were significantly more likely to solve fragments of previously presented than non-presented words. However, the aMCI group had significantly higher scores than the older adults without cognitive impairment, t(42) = 2.16, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.67. Our findings suggest that individuals with aMCI can enhance their performance on an explicit cognitive task, in this case, word-fragment completion, if previously exposed to the relevant information implicitly, opening up possible interventions aimed at this population.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".