MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391747441 · doi:10.3390/jintelligence12020019

Changes in the Networks of Attention across the Lifespan: A Graphical Meta-Analysis

2024· article· en· W4391747441 on OpenAlexafffund
Raymond M. Klein, Samantha R. Good, John Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttention networkPsychologyNeuropsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionYoung adultNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive psychologyAudiologyNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three Posnerian networks of attention (alerting, orienting, and executive control) have been distinguished on the bases of behavioural, neuropsychological, and neuroscientific evidence. Here, we examined the trajectories of these networks throughout the human lifespan using the various Attention Network Tests (ANTs), which were specifically developed to measure the efficacy of these networks. The ANT Database was used to identify relevant research, resulting in the inclusion of 36 publications. We conducted a graphical meta-analysis using network scores from each study, based on reaction time plotted as a function of age group. Evaluation of attentional networks from childhood to early adulthood suggests that the alerting network develops relatively quickly, and reaches near-adult level by the age of 12. The developmental pattern of the orienting network seems to depend on the information value of the spatial cues. Executive control network scores show a consistent decrease (improvement) with age in childhood. During adulthood (ages 19-75), changes in alerting depend on the modality of the warning signal, while a moderate increase in orienting scores was seen with increasing age. Whereas executive control scores, as measured in reaction time, increase (deterioration) from young adulthood into later adulthood an opposite trend is seen when scores are based on error rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of IntelligenceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207