Long-Term Maintenance of Inhibition Training Effects in Older Adults: 1- and 3-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Objectives: The aim of this study is to examine the long-term maintenance of training benefits in inhibition, as measured with the Stroop task, in older adults over 1- and 3-year periods. Methods: Participants from an original 6-session Stroop training study (Wilkinson & Yang, 2012 [Wilkinson, A. J., & Yang, L. (2012). Plasticity of inhibition in older adults: Retest practice and transfer effects. Psychology and Aging, 27, 606–615. doi:10.1037/a0025926]) were invited to come back to the lab to complete a single session of the Stroop task at 2 different time points. Thirty-three older adults returned for the 1-year follow-up session, and 26 of them returned for the 3-year follow-up session. Results: The results revealed maintenance of the training-induced inhibition gains at both follow-up sessions. Furthermore, performance at the 2 follow-up sessions was better (i.e., reduced Stroop ratio interference score) than baseline level. Discussion: The findings demonstrate the durability of inhibition training gains in older adults for up to a 3-year period. These results further extend the literature on long-term maintenance of cognitive training benefits in older adults by examining the durability of training effects in inhibition, an important executive function, and by covering a substantial maintenance period (i.e., up to 3 years). </p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".