Literature DB >> 2584919

Global increase in response latencies by early middle age: complexity effects in individual performances.

J Myerson1, S Hale, R Hirschman, C Hansen, B Christiansen.   

Abstract

Ten young women (age 20 to 22 years) and 10 middle-aged women (age 36 to 44 years) served as subjects in choice reaction time, letter classification, and abstract matching-to-sample tasks. In each of seven conditions, the older group responded more slowly than the younger group. Age differences showed a complexity effect. That is, differences between the latencies of young and old subjects increased as the latency of the young subjects increased. Both linear and power functions accurately described the relation between the latencies of the middle-aged and young adult groups. This was true not only for the relation between average latencies but also for the relation between corresponding quartiles of latency distributions. Similar results were observed at the individual level: All middle-aged subjects showed complexity effects, and, for each middle-aged subject, the relation between her latencies and those of the average young adult was well described by linear and power functions. These findings indicate that age-related slowing is apparent by age 40, and that complexity effects are observable in individual performances. This slowing is global and not specific to particular tasks, as indicated by the fact that the latencies of older adults can be predicted directly from those of younger adults without regard to the nature of the task.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2584919      PMCID: PMC1339187          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1989.52-353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  12 in total

1.  Sources of age differences in speed of processing.

Authors:  R Kail
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  1986-08

2.  General slowing of nonverbal information processing: evidence for a power law.

Authors:  S Hale; J Myerson; D Wagstaff
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1987-03

3.  Aging and retrieval of words in semantic memory.

Authors:  N L Bowles; L W Poon
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1985-01

Review 4.  Between bodily changes and performance: some possible reasons for slowing with age.

Authors:  A T Welford
Journal:  Exp Aging Res       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 1.645

5.  Measurement scales and the age-complexity hypothesis.

Authors:  A Baron
Journal:  Exp Aging Res       Date:  1985 Autumn-Winter       Impact factor: 1.645

6.  Chronometric analysis of classification.

Authors:  M I Posner; R F Mitchell
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1967-09       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Age-related effects of practice and task complexity on card sorting.

Authors:  L L Falduto; A Baron
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1986-09

8.  Effects of varying irrelevant information on adult age differences in problem solving.

Authors:  W J Hoyer; G W Rebok; S M Sved
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1979-07

9.  Reaction times of younger and older men and temporal contingencies of reinforcement.

Authors:  A Baron; S R Menich; M Perone
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Age-related effects of temporal contingencies on response speed and memory: an operant analysis.

Authors:  A Baron; S R Menich
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1985-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  Aging and intraindividual variability in performance: analyses of response time distributions.

Authors:  Joel Myerson; Shannon Robertson; Sandra Hale
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Individual differences, intelligence, and behavior analysis.

Authors:  Ben Williams; Joel Myerson; Sandra Hale
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  The role of rat dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in spatial working memory.

Authors:  N K Horst; M Laubach
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 3.590

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.