Cognitive control, interference inhibition and ordering of information during working memory in younger and older healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Investigating effects of aging on neurophysiological mechanisms underlying working memory provides a better understanding of potential targets for brain intervention to prevent cognitive decline. Theta‐gamma coupling (TGC) indexes the ability to order information processed during working memory tasks. Frontal theta event‐related synchronization (ERS) and parietal alpha event‐related desynchronization (ERD) index cognitive control and interference inhibition, respectively. Relative contributions of TGC, theta ERS and alpha ERD in relation to stimulus presentation are not characterized. Further, differential effect of normal aging on pre or post‐stimulus processes is unknown. Method Electroencephalography was recorded in 66 younger and 41 older healthy participants while performing 3‐back working memory task. We assessed relationships between 3‐back task performance and each of post‐stimulus TGC, pre‐stimulus parietal alpha ERD, and pre‐stimulus frontal theta ERS in each age group. Result While older adults performed worse on 3‐back task than younger adults. TGC, alpha ERD or theta ERS did not differ between the two groups. TGC was positively associated with 3‐back performance in both age groups; pre‐stimulus alpha ERD was associated with performance among younger adults; and pre‐stimulus theta ERS was not associated with performance in either group. Conclusion Our findings suggest that both pre‐stimulus interference inhibition and post‐stimulus ordering of information are important for working memory in younger adults. In contrast, performance in older adults appears to depend only on post‐stimulus ordering of information. These specific contributions of neurophysiological resources may explain the poorer performance of older adults and suggest different targets to enhance working memory in age groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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".