Naturalistic assessments in virtual reality and in real life help resolve the age-prospective memory paradox
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive aging researchers have long reported "paradoxical" age differences in prospective memory (PM), with age deficits in laboratory settings and age benefits (or no deficits) in real-world settings. We propose a theoretical account that explains this "age-PM-paradox" as a consequence of both methodological factors and developmental changes in cognitive abilities and personality traits. To test this account, young and older adults performed a series of naturalistic PM tasks in the lab and real world. Age-related PM deficits were observed in both lab-based tasks where demands were implemented using virtual reality and in-person role-playing. In contrast, older adults performed equal to or better than young adults on both real-world tasks, where demands were implemented in participants' daily lives. Consistent with our proposed account, an index of these "paradoxical" effects was partially predicted by age-related differences in working memory, vigilance, agreeableness, and neuroticism, whose predictive utility varied across task settings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it