Exploring diurnal effects on attention and working memory with young and older adults using the Dalhousie computerized attention battery (DalCAB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study was conducted to assess the feasibility of a remote administration of the DalCAB, confirm a preference for eveningness in young adults and morningness in older adults, and see if age-related shifting diurnal rhythm preferences affect attention performance.Of the 62 participants who consented to participate, 26 young adults (18-35 years) and 29 older adults (55-79 years) completed the DalCAB once in the morning (8 AM) and once in the evening (4 PM) and took the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) to assess diurnal preference.With a 90% completion rate and highly acceptable System Usability Scale scores we conclude that remote administration of the DalCAB is feasible.We found a significant relationship between age and MEQ type with an increased preference for morningness with age.Current data suggest that both older and younger adults were able to perform similarly on the DalCAB at any time during the normal workday.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".