Vulnerability to semantic and phonological interference in normal aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the increased vulnerability to semantic interference previously observed in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is specifically associated with semantic material or if it also affects other types of material, suggesting generalized executive and inhibitory impairment. METHOD: Seventy-two participants divided into two groups (33 aMCI, 39 normal control [NC]) matched for age and education were included. They completed a comprehensive neuropsychological examination, the French version of the Loewenstein Acevedo Scale for Semantic Interference and Learning (LASSI-L; semantic interference test), and a homologous experimental phonological test, the phonological interference and learning test. Independent sample t tests, mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on memory and interference scores were conducted to compare memory and interference in both conditions for both groups. RESULTS: For memory scores, results revealed significant main effects of group (NC > aMCI) and condition (semantic > phonological) and significant interactions (poorer performance in the semantic condition for aMCI). aMCI committed more phonological false recognition errors, were disproportionately more vulnerable to retroactive semantic interference, and showed a higher percentage of intrusion errors associated with proactive semantic interference than NC. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare vulnerability to interference in aMCI and normal aging with two similarly designed semantic and phonological word list learning tasks. Taken together, our results suggest that aMCI present with broad difficulties in source memory and inhibition, but that impaired deep semantic processing results in additional semantic intrusion errors during proactive interference and impacts their ability to show good recall after an interference list (greater semantic retroactive interference). Results are discussed according to the level-of-processing and activation/monitoring theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".