ArticlePsychology and aging2022
Transparency, replicability, and discovery in cognitive aging research: A computational modeling approach.
Article in Psychology and aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and opportunities of psychological aging research.European journal of ageing · 2025Review
- Probing the origins of subjective confidence in source memory decisions in young and older adults: A sequential sampling account.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
- "The eyes are the window to the representation": Linking gaze to memory precision and decision weights in object discrimination tasks.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Intraobject and extraobject memory binding across early development.Developmental psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthy aging is associated with deficits in performance on episodic memory tasks. Popular verbal theories of the mechanisms underlying this decrement have primarily focused on inferred changes in associative memory. However, performance on any task is the result of interactions between different neurocognitive mechanisms, such as perceptuomotor, memory, and decision-making processes. As a result, age-related differences in performance could arise from multiple processes, which could lead to incomplete or incorrect conclusions about the sources of aging effects. In addition, standard statistical comparisons of group-level summary statistics, such as mean accuracy, may not provide sufficient information to allow detailed mechanistic explanations of age-related change. We argue that these and other drawbacks of relying exclusively on verbal theories can hamper replicability, transparency, and scientific progress in aging research and psychological science more generally, and that computational modeling is a tool that can address many of these limitations. Computational models make mathematically transparent claims about how latent processes give rise to observed behavior and decompose an individual's performance into model parameters governing hypothesized mechanisms. In this work, we present a short memory task designed for and analyzed with mechanistic model-based approaches. We provide an example of a computational model and fit the model to data from young and older adults with hierarchical Bayesian techniques in order to (a) detect differences in latent cognitive processes between young and older adults (as well as individual participants), (b) quantitatively compare models to assess different processes that could underlie performance, and (c) simulate data to make predictions for future experiments based on model mechanisms. We argue that computational modeling is a powerful tool to examine age differences in latent processes, make theories more transparent, and facilitate discovery in cognitive aging research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.