Plasticity of inhibition in old age: durability, practice and transfer effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical research indicates age-related declines in three sub-functions of inhibition: access (keeping irrelevant information outside one's focus of attention), deletion (ridding working memory of no longer relevant information), and restraint (withholding automatic responses that are not appropriate for the task at hand). Although single-task inhibition training has been previously explored using a six-session Stroop task program, no research has been done to examine long-term durability of the practice gains or the impact of a multi-task approach to inhibition training in older adults. This dissertation fills these gaps in the literature with three studies. The first study evaluates the maintenance of Stroop training one and three years following initial training and finds evidence in support of long-term durability of single-task inhibition training in older adults. The remaining two studies explored the benefits of training all three sub-functions of inhibition in older adults. First, study 2 seeks to confirm the presence of age differences in all three sub-functions of inhibition - supporting a rationale for training these abilities in older adults. Last, study 3 examines the plasticity of all three sub-functions of inhibition in older adults across six retest practice sessions, and three levels of associated transfer: near-near (transfer to the tasks used at training, but with varying items), near (transfer to tasks that were not trained, but tap the same abilities as the training tasks), and far (transfer to tasks that were trained and tap abilities different from those trained). The findings indicate the older adults show retest practice gains in all three sub-functions of inhibition. Furthermore, strong evidence supports near-near transfer, while there is limited support for near transfer and no support for far transfer effects in older adults following three sub-functions of inhibition training. Taken together these studies contribute to the cognitive aging literature by evaluating several key features of plasticity in inhibition, including durability of training effects, retest practice and transfer effects. These findings have implications for the development of effective cognitive training programs in older 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.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".