Aging and response interference across sensory modalities

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 836-842

  Guerreiro, Maria J S ^a,b   Adam, Jos J ^a   Van Gerven, Pascal W M ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aging; Distraction; Response interference; Sensory modality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84897664564     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0554-5     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adam, J. J., Paas, F. G. W. C., Teeken, J. C., van Loon, E. M., van Boxtel, M. P. J., Houx, P. J., & Jolles, J. (1998). Effects of age on performance in a finger-precuing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 870-883. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 24. 3. 870.
2. Castel, A. D., Balota, D. A., Hutchison, K. A., Logan, J. M., & Yap, M. J. (2007). Spatial attention and response control in healthy younger and older adults and individuals with Alzheimer's disease: Evidence for disproportionate selection impairments in the Simon task. Neuropsychology, 21, 170-182. doi: 10. 1037/0894-4105. 21. 2. 170.
3. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196468.
4. Connelly, S. L., & Hasher, L. (1993). Aging and the inhibition of spatial location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1238-1250. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 19. 6. 1238.
5. Davis, A. (1995). Hearing in adults. Nottingham, England: Whurr.
6. Edwards, A. L. (1951). Balanced Latin-square designs in psychological research. The American Journal of Psychology, 64, 598-603.
7. Einstein, G. O., Earles, J. L., & Collins, H. M. (2002). Gaze aversion: Spared inhibition for visual distraction in older adults. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P65-P73. doi: 10. 1093/geronb/57. 1. P65.
8. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193146.
9. Guerreiro, M. J. S., Adam, J. J., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2012). Automatic selective attention as a function of sensory modality in aging. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67, 194-202. doi: 10. 1093/geronb/gbr090.
10. Guerreiro, M. J. S., Murphy, D. R., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2010). The role of sensory modality in age-related distraction: A critical review and a renewed view. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 975-1022. doi: 10. 1037/a0020731.
11. Guerreiro, M. J. S., Murphy, D. R., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2013). Making sense of age-related distractibility: The critical role of sensory modality. Acta Psychologica, 142, 184-194. doi: 10. 1016/j. actapsy. 2012. 11. 007.
12. Guerreiro, M. J. S., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2011). Now you see it, now you don't: Evidence for age-dependent and age-independent cross-modal distraction. Psychology and Aging, 26, 415-426. doi: 10. 1037/a0021507.
13. Hartley, A. A. (1993). Evidence for the selective preservation of spatial selective attention in old age. Psychology and Aging, 8, 371-379. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 8. 3. 371.
14. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356-388. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 108. 3. 356.
15. Hugenschmidt, C. E., Peiffer, A. M., McCoy, T. P., Hayasaka, S., & Laurienti, P. J. (2009). Preservation of crossmodal selective attention in healthy aging. Experimental Brain Research, 198, 273-285. doi: 10. 1007/s00221-009-1816-3.
16. Jolles, J., Houx, P. J., van Boxtel, M. P. J., & Ponds, R. W. H. M. (Eds.). (1995). The Maastricht aging study: Determinants of cognitive aging. Maastricht, Netherlands: Neuropsychology Publishers.
17. Lukas, S., Phillip, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: Futher evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255-267. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-009-0246-y.
18. Lustig, C., Hasher, L., & Tonev, S. T. (2001). Inhibitory control over the present and the past. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 107-122. doi: 10. 1080/09541440042000241.
19. Onur, O. A., Piefke, M., Lie, C.-H., Thiel, C. M., & Fink, G. R. (2012). Modulatory effects of levodopa on cognitive control in young but not in older subjects: A pharmacological fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2797-2810. doi: 10. 1162/jocn. 2011. 211603.
20. Pick, D. F., & Proctor, R. W. (1999). Age differences in the effects of irrelevant location information. In M. Scerbo & M. W. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation technology and human performance (pp. 258-261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Pinsk, M. A., Doniger, G. M., & Kastner, S. (2004). Push-pull mechanism of selective attention in human extrastriate cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92, 622-629. doi: 10. 1152/jn. 00974. 2003.
22. Poliakoff, E., Ashworth, S., Lowe, C., & Spence, C. (2006). Vision and touch in ageing: Crossmodal selective attention and visuotactile spatial interactions. Neuropsychologia, 44, 507-517. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2005. 07. 004.
23. Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157-171.
24. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416-442. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 132. 3. 416.
25. Proctor, R. W., Pick, D. F., Vu, K.-P. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2005). The enhanced Simon effect for older adults is reduced when the irrelevant location information is conveyed by an accessory stimulus. Acta Psychologica, 119, 21-40. doi: 10. 1016/j. actpsy. 2004. 10. 014.
26. Raven, J., Court, J., & Raven, J. (1988). Raven's standard progressive matrices. London, England: J. C. Raven Ltd.
27. Simon, J. R., & Pouraghabagher, A. R. (1978). The effect of aging on the stages of processing in a choice reaction time task. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 553-561. doi: 10. 1093/geronj/33. 4. 553.
28. Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 461-479. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 22. 2. 461.
29. Stroop, R. J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 121. 1. 15.
30. van der Elst, W., van Boxtel, M. P. J., van Breukelen, G. J. P., & Jolles, J. (2006). The Stroop color-word test: Influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment, 13, 62-79. doi: 10. 1177/1073191105283427.
31. van Gerven, P. W. M., & Murphy, D. R. (2010). Aging and distraction by irrelevant speech: Does emotional valence matter? Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 65B, 667-770. doi: 10. 1093/geronb/gbq048.
32. Wild-Wall, N., Falkenstein, M., & Hohnsbein, J. (2008). Flanker interference in young and older participants as reflected in event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1211, 72-84. doi: 10. 1016/j. brainres. 2008. 03. 025.
33. Wurm, L. H., Labouvie-Vief, G., Aycock, J., Rebucal, K. A., & Koch, H. E. (2004). Performance in auditory and visual emotional Stroop tasks: A comparison of older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 19, 523-535. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 19. 3. 523.
34. Zhu, D. C., Zacks, R. T., & Slade, J. M. (2010). Brain activation during interference resolution in young and older adults: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 50, 810-817. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2009. 12. 087.