Response Time Data: A Novel Measure of Cognitive Function and Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholarly, clinical, and policy interest in cognitive function has grown over the last several decades in part due to large increases in Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias as populations age. However, adequate measures of cognitive function have not been available in many research data sets. We argue that a wealth of previously unexploited survey data exists to model cognition and cognitive decline. We use metadata of the time it takes older respondents in the National Social Life, Health and Aging Survey, which we label response times (RT), to answer questions in a standard cognitive assessment. We develop a measure of RT to a survey-adapted form of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and show that RT predict both concurrent and future MoCA scores. Our results show that longer RT at baseline predict lower MoCA scores five year later, net of baseline scores and controls. We show that RT also have predictive validity; they are highly correlated with other measures of physical decline and mortality. Our paper demonstrates that RT constitute a separate powerful measure of cognitive functioning and are particularly useful for individuals whose measured cognition suggests mild cognitive impairment, a part of the cognition distribution where errors are meaningful and particularly problematic. RT may be remarkably useful both to clinicians and social scientists because they can increase accuracy of cognitive assessment without increasing the time it takes to administer the assessment. <br>
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".