ArticleInternational journal of aging & human development2014
Event simultaneity does not eliminate age deficits in implicit probabilistic sequence learning.
Article in International journal of aging & human development, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implicit associative learning relates to basal ganglia gray matter microstructure in young and older adults.Behavioural brain research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies have shown age-related deficits in learning subtle probabilistic sequential relationships. However, virtually all sequence learning studies have displayed successive events one at a time. Here we used a modified Triplets Learning Task to investigate if an age deficit occurs even when sequentially-presented predictive events remain in view simultaneously. Twelve young and 12 old adults observed two cue events and responded to a target event on each of a series of trials. All three events remained in view until the subject responded. Unbeknownst to participants, the first cue predicted one of four targets on 80% of the trials. Learning was indicated by faster and more accurate responding to these high-probability targets than to low-probability targets. Results revealed age deficits in sequence learning even with this simultaneous display, suggesting that age differences are not due solely to general processing declines, but rather reflect an age-related deficit in associative learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.