Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41476640›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging2025

Reasoning decline during aging under familiar and unfamiliar physics.

Melissa Dexter, Hélène Grandchamp des Raux, Ori Ossmy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Melissa DexterCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Hélène Grandchamp des RauxCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ori OssmyCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physical reasoning is the capacity to anticipate how an environment will change as its elements move and interact. This cognitive skill, which is based on humans' intuitive knowledge of physics, underlies everyday tasks that are potentially critical to older adults, such as avoiding collisions. Nevertheless, the effects of aging on physical reasoning remain understudied. Here, we tested physical reasoning among younger (18-35 years) and older (over 65 years) adults as they completed different difficulty levels of a physical reasoning paradigm. Participants viewed object displacements in a virtual environment and had to decide the outcome of that displacement under different gravity forces (terrestrial gravity, half, and double terrestrial gravity). We also tested distinct physical action concepts-supporting, launching, and clearing-because those index different demands on object-interaction complexity and are known to differ during child development. This allowed us to determine whether age-related differences reflect a global decline in physical reasoning or a selective difficulty with conceptually more complex, multi-object predictions. Our results revealed that older adults performed comparably to younger adults in straightforward

Indexed as

adaptabilityagingaltered gravityflexibilityphysical cognitionreasoning

Identifiers

PMID41476640
PMCPMC12748166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.