A Comparative Analysis of Eye Movement Accuracy for Locating Items Held in Visual Short‐Term Memory Among Young Healthy Adults, Older Adults With Normal Cognition, and Older Adults Indicative of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the accuracy of eye movements in locating an item stored in visual short-term memory between young healthy adults, normally aging older adults, and older adults with mild cognitive impairment as indicated by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III test. METHODS: Thirty-three young healthy adults, 38 normally aging older adults, and 17 older adults indicative of MCI completed two experiments requiring object-location binding. In Experiment 1, participants viewed 2-4 memory items displayed sequentially at random screen locations. Following a 900 ms interval, eye movements were recorded while participants moved their eyes to the location of the memory item corresponding to a displayed cue. In Experiment 2 (control), participants indicated whether or not the test item was shown at its original location using a yes/no response. RESULTS: MCI-indicative participants exhibited greater saccadic error (spatial deviation of saccadic endpoint from the remembered target location) than normally aging older (p = 0.002) and young (p < 0.001) participants at low memory load only. At higher memory load, the saccadic error distance was greater for all groups (p < 0.001). Moreover, in Experiment 2, MCI-indicative participants exhibited significantly poorer memory performance than normally aging older adults, but only at lower memory load (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Saccadic accuracy declined with memory load for all groups. The MCI-indicative group showed lower saccadic accuracy versus normally aging older and young adults at low memory load. The findings offer important insights into our understanding of saccadic eye movement as a potential behavioral marker for MCI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".