MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224274621 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/j4583

Aging impairs memory for perceptual, but not narrative event details

2022· preprint· en· W4224274621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angelique I. Delarazan, Charan Ranganath, Zachariah M. Reagh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNarrativeMnemonicPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionPerceptionEpisodic memoryCognitive declineRecognition memoryCognitive agingMemory errorsDevelopmental psychologyDementiaNeuroscienceMedicineRecallLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory declines over the course of healthy aging. However, memory is not a monolith, and draws from different kinds of representations. Historically, much of our understanding of age-related memory decline arise from recognition of items that tend to focus on isolated studied items. In contrast, real-life events are remembered as narratives, and this kind of information is often missed in typical memory recognition studies. Here, we designed a task to tax mnemonic discrimination of event details, directly contrasting perceptual and narrative memory. Older and younger adults watched an episode of a television show and later completed an Old/New recognition test featuring targets, novel foils, and similar lures in narrative and perceptual domains. While we observed no age-related differences on basic recognition of repeated targets and novel foils, older adults showed a deficit in correctly rejecting perceptual, but not narrative lures. Further analyses split the older adult group into low versus high scorers on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), revealing that age-related deficits in discrimination performance of perceptual lures were largely driven by older adults with low MoCA scores. These findings provide insights into the vulnerability of different memory domains in aging, and may be useful in characterizing individuals at risk for pathological cognitive decline.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207