Transactional longitudinal relations between accuracy and reaction time on a measure of cognitive flexibility at 5, 6, and 7 years of age
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
Whereas accuracy is used as an indicator of cognitive flexibility in preschool-age children, reaction time (RT), or a combination of accuracy and RT, provide better indices of performance as children transition to school. Theoretical models and cross-sectional studies suggest that a speed-accuracy tradeoff may be operating across this transition, but the lack of longitudinal studies makes this transition difficult to understand. The current study explored the longitudinal and bidirectional associations between accuracy and RT on the DCCS (mixed block) at 5, 6, and 7 years of age using cross-lagged panel analyses. The study also examined the roles of working memory and language, as potential longitudinal mediators between RT at Time X and accuracy at Time X + 1, and explored the role of inhibitory control. The sample consisted of 425 children from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Results show lagged associations from slower RT to greater improvements in accuracy between 5 and 6 years and between 6 and 7 years. Further, higher accuracy at 6 years predicted faster RT at 7 years. Only working memory acted as a partial mediator between RT at 5 years and accuracy at 6 years. These results provide needed longitudinal evidence to support theoretical claims that slower RT precedes improved accuracy in the development of cognitive flexibility, that working memory may be involved in the early stage of this process, and that accuracy and reaction time become more efficient in later stages of this process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it