Computational modeling of selective attention differentiates subtypes of amnestic mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), a prodromal stage of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, show inhibition deficits in addition to episodic memory. How the latent processes of selective attention (i.e., from perception to motor response) contribute to these inhibition deficits remains unclear. Therefore, the present study examined contributions of selective attention to aMCI-related inhibition deficits using computational modeling of attentional dynamics. Two models of selective attention - the dual-stage two-phase model and the shrinking spotlight model - were fitted to individual participant data from a flanker task completed by 34 individuals with single-domain aMCI (sdaMCI, 66-86 years), 20 individuals with multiple-domain aMCI (mdaMCI, 68-88 years), and 52 healthy controls (64-88 years). Findings showed greater commission errors in the mdaMCI group compared to controls. Final-fitting model parameters indicated inhibitory and early perceptual deficits in mdaMCI , and impaired spatial allocation of attention in both MCI groups. Model parameters differentiated mdaMCI from sdaMCI and controls with moderate-to-high sensitivity and specificity. Impairments in perception and selective attention may contribute to inhibition deficits in both aMCI subtypes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".