Inhibition and Creativity in Aging: Does Distractibility Enhance Creativity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a fundamental attention regulation process, inhibition serves to selectively filter out distraction (i.e., access), dampen activation of automatically activated irrelevant or no-longer-relevant information (i.e., deletion), and select for task-appropriate thoughts and/or responses in the face of competition (i.e., restraint). Inhibition allows us to direct attention or processing toward target information, thoughts, or actions. It is affected by several factors and is especially compromised with aging as demonstrated in both behavioral and neuroimaging research. Nevertheless, older adults show significant and durable plasticity in inhibition performance. Heightened distractibility as a result of impaired inhibition in older adults can manifest as a cost or a benefit with a tendency to be related to better creativity performance when distraction becomes task relevant. In this article, we review the components of inhibitory theory, summarizing intraindividual variability and interindividual differences in inhibition, with a specific focus on the inhibitory deficit associated with aging. The review also brings together theories and empirical findings to support the relationship between inhibitory deficit and creativity in the context of aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".