MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391434009 · doi:10.1037/neu0000945

Vulnerability to semantic and phonological interference in normal aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).

2024· article· en· W4391434009 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Joëlle Chasles, Sven Joubert, Jessica Cole, Émilie Delage, Isabelle Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)PsychologyCognitive impairmentCognitionCognitive psychologyInterference (communication)AudiologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207