PERSPECTIVE-TAKING DECLINE IN OLDER ADULTS WITH AND WITHOUT SUBJECTIVE COGNITIVE DECLINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), a self-reported decline in cognitive function without objective cognitive decline, is an early risk marker of pathological aging (Jessen et al., 2020). Healthy older adults with SCD(+) were found to have lower objective cognition and increased rates of cognitive decline compared to those without SCD(-) (Morrison & Oliver, 2023). Cognitively-healthy older adults (OA) had shown a decline in perspective-taking abilities compared to younger adults (YA). However, little research has examined whether self-report SCD plays a role in such age-related declines. We examined age-related changes in perspective-taking abilities in OA with and without SCD vis-à-vis YA. Participants were 25 YA (Mage=22.44, range=20-27), 27 SCD- (Mage=68.67, range=60-77), and 20 SCD+ (Mage=66.55, range=60-72). OA were categorized as SCD-/SCD+ based on SCD-Questionnaire (Rami, 2014). SCD- and SCD+ groups were comparable in general cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment; p=.91). Participants completed the “owl” task assessing visual perspective-taking (VPT) and the “director” task assessing cognitive perspective-taking (CPT). Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed that YA outperformed OA (Zs>3.52, ps<.001) in VPT, with no significant difference between SCD- and SCD+ (Z=1.27, p=.21). Surprisingly, both YA and SCD+ were better than SCD- in CPT (Zs>2.34, ps<.04), and SCD+ did not differ significantly from YA (Z=0.02, p=.99). Our results suggest that while visual perspective-taking may decline with age regardless of SCD, cognitive perspective-taking may be preserved in older adults with SCD. SCD(+) may signal a hyperawareness of cognitive states in self and others, which in turn stimulate better cognitive perspective-taking. Implications of SCD on social cognition will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".