Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents a review of selective attention functioning in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The primary focus is on work conducted into this complex topic within the author and colleagues' laboratories (i.e. studies of simple and conjoined visual search). Findings obtained by the author and colleagues investigating simple and conjoined feature visual search in AD are related to findings obtained in the same laboratories in the healthy elderly and in patients with Parkinson's disease. Selective attention is a complex, multifactorial entity. Impairment of selective attention may be an early feature of AD and a prominent clinical characteristic of some patients. However, there are currently few reliable clinical measures of attentional dysfunction in AD. The experimental literature implicates some aspects of selective attention more reliably in AD than others. With respect to our own empirical studies, more effortful or controlled aspects of selective attention (as characterized by conjoined feature visual search) are impaired in AD. Furthermore, on the basis of our experimental observations, these aspects of selective attention appear to be disproportionately impaired relative to deficits in other cognitive domains that have previously been reported in the AD literature. By contrast, conjoined feature visual search deficits were not observed in our studies in patients with Parkinson's disease. The selective attention deficits that we have noted in AD patients represent an extension of the types of impairments that we have also observed in healthy aging; that is, compared with the healthy elderly, AD patients were quantitatively but not qualitatively more impaired on conjoined feature visual search. This is an important observation. The ways in which these findings relate to the wider AD selective attention literature are also considered, drawing out several common theoretical strands across a range of empirical studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".