MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388833003 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ks7b6

Shift happens: Aging alters the content but not the organization of memory for complex events

2023· preprint· en· W4388833003 on OpenAlexaff
Can Fenerci, Emily E. Davis, Sarah Henderson, Karen L. Campbell, Signy Sheldon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpisodic memoryRecallPsychologyAutobiographical memoryNarrativeCognitive psychologyContiguityPerceptionContent (measure theory)CognitionReconstructive memoryDevelopmental psychologyExplicit memoryComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive aging research has focused on comparing episodic memory accuracy between young and old adults. Less work has described qualitative shifts in how episodic memories are encoded and recalled. This is especially relevant for memories of real-world experiences, since there is immense variability in which details can be accessed and organized into a coherent narrative. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated age effects on the organization and content of memory for complex events. In two independent samples (N=45; 60), young and older adults encoded and recalled a short-movie. We scored the recollections for recall accuracy, temporal organization (temporal contiguity, forward asymmetry) and biases in memory content (perceptual, conceptual). In both samples, despite no age-effects on recall accuracy nor on metrics of organization, aging led to a stronger emphasis on conceptual content. Our results indicate that rather than a deficit, age-related differences in episodic recall reflect distinctions in what details younger and older adults assemble from the past events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.084 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207