MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243459443 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655447.v1

Aging and Emotional Effects on Working Memory and Long-Term Memory for Target and Distracting Information

2021· preprint· en· W4243459443 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWorking memoryRecallArousalInterference theoryLong-term memoryDevelopmental psychologyValence (chemistry)Emotional valenceShort-term memoryCognitive psychologyAudiologyCognitionSocial psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To resolve discrepancies between studies on the effects of emotional content on working memory, and to examine changes with age, this study examined the effects of emotional content on working memory and subsequent long-term memory for targets and distracters. Thirty-six younger (ages 18-29) and 36 older adults (ages 65-87) participated in a working memory task in which they viewed two target words intermixed with two distracters followed by a probe word, and responded to whether the probe was a target word. The emotional content (valence and arousal) of targets and distracters was manipulated. Subsequent long-term memory was tested with a free recall task. Results indicated that emotional content of targets facilitated working adults experiencing disruption from positive and neutral distracters, and older adults experiencing interference from negative distracters. Emotional effects in long-term memory were only seen for younger 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207