Effects of aging and emotional valence on item directed forgetting and source attributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments investigated the effects of aging and emotion on intentional forgetting. Experiment 1 compared 36 young (aged 18-28, M = 20.22, SD = 3.12) and 36 older adults (aged 65-85, M = 71.53, SD = 5.44) on item directed forgetting and source attributions (i.e., assigning a 'remember', 'forget', or 'new' tag during recognition) of positive, negative, and neutral words. Older adults' directed forgetting was reduced for positive words and their source attributions were differentially affected by emotion. Emotion had no effect on young adults' performance. Experiment 2 examined the role of attention in older adults' intentional forgetting. Thirty-six older adults (aged 65-91, M = 73.92, SD = 7.55) completed an emotional item directed forgetting task that incorporated a probe-detection task during encoding to assess the allocation of attention across valence conditions. Older adults again showed reduced directed forgetting for positive words and emotional effects in source attributions; however, results from the probe-detection task indicated the older adults' attention may not have been influenced by the emotional tone of stimuli during encoding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".