Age differences in reward-motivation attention: behavioural and ERP evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attentional system is comprised of three networks: alerting, orienting, and executive control, all of which are associated with unique neural systems. Research examining motivationcognition interactions implicate the dopaminergic and locus-coeruleus norepinephrine systems in attentional and motivational processes, both of which show age differences. The current study was conducted to explore the mechanisms through which gain and loss motivation affect attention across the lifespan, using behavioural and electrophysiological markers of attentional networks. Younger adults (18-33 years) and older adults (65-80 years) completed an incentivized version of the Attention Network Test. Our behavioural results showed age differences in incentive sensitivity, such that responses were modulated as a function of incentives. We also examined cue-N1, target-N1, and target-P3, which showed transient incentive-based modulation, and depended on incentive valence. Overall, our study provides evidence for age-related differences in the modulation of attentional networks, and contributes new insights into the mechanisms behind motivation-cognition interactions. Keywords: Attention Network Test, Motivation, Incentives, Cognitive Aging, Alerting, Executive Control
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".