Literature DB >> 23834491

Age-related changes in attentional selection: quality of task set or degradation of task set across time?

Jonathan D Jackson1, David A Balota.   

Abstract

The present study explores the nature of attentional selection in younger and older adults. Following R. De Jong, E. Berendsen, and R. Cools (1999, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 101, pp. 379-394), we manipulated the response to stimulus interval (RSI) in two attentional selection paradigms to examine if there are age-related differences in the quality of task set and/or the maintenance of task set across time. In Experiment 1, we found that the interference effect in a spatial interference task was (a) overall larger in older adults compared with younger adults, and (b) smaller at the short RSI (200 ms) compared with the long RSI (2000 ms), and (c) not associated with an interaction between age and RSI. The second experiment explored the same variables in a Stroop color interference paradigm. Again, older adults produced a disproportionately larger interference effect than younger adults, the interference effect was smaller at the short RSI compared with the long RSI, and there was no evidence of an interaction between age and RSI. In both experiments, the larger interference effect could not be attributed to age-related general slowing and there was evidence from Vincentile analyses of increasing interference and age effects at the slower response latencies. These results indicate that attentional selection deficits in these two experiments were due to a breakdown in the quality of the task set as opposed to age-related differences in the maintenance of the task set across time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23834491      PMCID: PMC3979426          DOI: 10.1037/a0033159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Aging        ISSN: 0882-7974


  14 in total

Review 1.  Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: implications for group differences in response latency.

Authors:  M E Faust; D A Balota; D H Spieler; F R Ferraro
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions.

Authors:  D H Spieler; D A Balota; M E Faust
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations.

Authors:  R De Jong; E Berendsen; R Cools
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1999-04

4.  Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots.

Authors:  Michael S Pratte; Jeffrey N Rouder; Richard D Morey; Chuning Feng
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 5.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review.

Authors:  C M MacLeod
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  The influence of aging and frontal function on the neural correlates of regulative and evaluative aspects of cognitive control.

Authors:  Robert West; Hillary Schwarb
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Effects of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults.

Authors:  R West; G C Baylis
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1998-06

8.  Stroop effect: interference and facilitation with verbal and manual responses.

Authors:  G M Redding; D A Gerjets
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1977-08

9.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation.

Authors:  J R Simon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1969-07

10.  Attentional blocks are not responsible for age-related slowing.

Authors:  T A Salthouse
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1993-11
View more
  9 in total

1.  Task manipulation effects on the relationship between working memory and go/no-go task performance.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Wiemers; Thomas S Redick
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2019-03-29

2.  Some further clarifications on age-related differences in Stroop interference.

Authors:  Maria Augustinova; David Clarys; Nicolas Spatola; Ludovic Ferrand
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

3.  Interactive effects of working memory and trial history on Stroop interference in cognitively healthy aging.

Authors:  Andrew J Aschenbrenner; David A Balota
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2015-01-19

4.  Some further clarifications on age-related differences in the Stroop task: New evidence from the two-to-one Stroop paradigm.

Authors:  Mariana Burca; Pierre Chausse; Ludovic Ferrand; Benjamin A Parris; Maria Augustinova
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-09-30

5.  The influence of working memory capacity and lapses of attention for variation in error monitoring.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Ashley L Miller; Matthew K Robison
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 3.526

Review 6.  The loci of Stroop effects: a critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection.

Authors:  Benjamin A Parris; Nabil Hasshim; Michael Wadsley; Maria Augustinova; Ludovic Ferrand
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-08-13

7.  Dynamic adjustments of attentional control in healthy aging.

Authors:  Andrew J Aschenbrenner; David A Balota
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2017-02

8.  The flexibility of cognitive control: Age equivalence with experience guiding the way.

Authors:  Emily R Cohen-Shikora; Nathaniel T Diede; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2018-08-06

9.  Can mind-wandering be timeless? Atemporal focus and aging in mind-wandering paradigms.

Authors:  Jonathan D Jackson; Yana Weinstein; David A Balota
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-10-16
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.