MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200210642 · doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2021.100074

The influence of different types of auditory change on processes associated with the switching of attention in older adults and people with mild cognitive impairment

2021· article· en· W4200210642 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroimage Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsP3aMismatch negativityPsychologyAudiologyStimulus (psychology)CognitionEvent-related potentialDevelopmental psychologyElectroencephalographyCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The involuntary detection of acoustic change following presentation of rarely presented deviant auditory stimulus will elicit an event-related potential (ERP), the deviant-related negativity (DRN). If the deviant stimulus is potentially highly relevant, a later P3a may also be elicited. This is thought to reflect processes associated with the switching of attention away from current processing demands. Previous studies have indicated that cognitively healthy older adults are less able to switch processing priorities upon presentation of these stimuli compared to young adults. The present study examined if people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are less able to switch processing priorities than cognitively healthy older adults. Two experiments were run. In each, 20 healthy older adults and 20 people with MCI were presented with to-be-ignored auditory stimuli while engaged in a visual task. The auditory stimuli consisted of frequently-presented standards and different types of deviants. In Experiment 1, the deviants represented either decreases or increases in the intensity of the standard. In Experiment 2, six different deviants were presented. In both experiments, a DRN was elicited by all deviants. Its amplitude did not, however, significantly differ between the two groups. Only the increment, white noise, and environmental sound deviants elicited a P3a. This P3a also did not significantly differ between the two groups. These results indicate that there is no evidence that the ability to switch processing priorities differs between people with MCI and cognitively healthy older adults.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · 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