Kara L Bopp1, Paul Verhaeghen2. 1. Wofford College, Spartanburg, South Carolina. 2. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic review of age-related differences in n-back performance. METHOD: Meta-analytic data aggregation. RESULTS: Access for items stored within the focus of attention (0-back and 1-back) was very fast and quasi-perfect; when items are held outside the focus (n > 1), an additional cost was accrued in both accuracy and response time. Age-related differences in accuracy conformed to this bifurcation. Longer lists led to larger costs when going from 1-back to 2-back in older adults. For 1-back accuracy, studies that used visual (as opposed to verbal) stimuli, were experimenter-paced, and used shorter list lengths led to larger age-related differences; for 2-back accuracy, a larger difference in chronological age, visual stimuli, and a higher target proportion led to larger age-related differences. For 1-back response times, age-related differences were larger for studies that had a larger chronological age difference, used experimenter pacing, did not contain lures, and used shorter list lengths; for 2-back response times, age-related differences were larger for studies with larger chronological age differences, visual presentation, experimenter pacing, and a higher target proportion. DISCUSSION: The results suggest a specific age-related deficit associated with focus switching within working memory. Evidence for specific executive-control-related explanations, in contrast, is mixed.
OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic review of age-related differences in n-back performance. METHOD: Meta-analytic data aggregation. RESULTS: Access for items stored within the focus of attention (0-back and 1-back) was very fast and quasi-perfect; when items are held outside the focus (n > 1), an additional cost was accrued in both accuracy and response time. Age-related differences in accuracy conformed to this bifurcation. Longer lists led to larger costs when going from 1-back to 2-back in older adults. For 1-back accuracy, studies that used visual (as opposed to verbal) stimuli, were experimenter-paced, and used shorter list lengths led to larger age-related differences; for 2-back accuracy, a larger difference in chronological age, visual stimuli, and a higher target proportion led to larger age-related differences. For 1-back response times, age-related differences were larger for studies that had a larger chronological age difference, used experimenter pacing, did not contain lures, and used shorter list lengths; for 2-back response times, age-related differences were larger for studies with larger chronological age differences, visual presentation, experimenter pacing, and a higher target proportion. DISCUSSION: The results suggest a specific age-related deficit associated with focus switching within working memory. Evidence for specific executive-control-related explanations, in contrast, is mixed.
Authors: Michelle W Voss; Timothy B Weng; Krithika Narayana-Kumanan; Rachel C Cole; Conner Wharff; Lauren Reist; Lyndsey Dubose; Gardar Sigurdsson; James A Mills; Jeffrey D Long; Vincent A Magnotta; Gary L Pierce Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Jana Reifegerste; João Veríssimo; Michael D Rugg; Mariel Y Pullman; Laura Babcock; Dana A Glei; Maxine Weinstein; Noreen Goldman; Michael T Ullman Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2020-06-05
Authors: Andrew G Pearson; Kathleen B Miller; Adam T Corkery; Nicole A Eisenmann; Anna J Howery; Alexandra E Carl; Marlowe W Eldridge; Jill N Barnes Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Esther C McWilliams; Florentine M Barbey; John F Dyer; Md Nurul Islam; Bernadette McGuinness; Brian Murphy; Hugh Nolan; Peter Passmore; Laura M Rueda-Delgado; Alison R Buick Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Hannes Devos; Jeffrey M Burns; Ke Liao; Pedram Ahmadnezhad; Jonathan D Mahnken; William M Brooks; Kathleen Gustafson Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 5.750