Accounting for Cognitive Aging: Context Processing, Inhibition or Processing Speed?

Abstract

Age-related deficits in context processing were examined in relationship to two predominant theories of cognitive aging (the Inhibitory Deficit and Processing Speed Models). Older and younger adults completed a measure of context processing (AX Continuous Performance Test (CPT) task) as well as a computerized battery of inhibitory tasks: Stroop, garden path sentences, go no-go, and the stop-signal paradigm. Participants also completed a simple processing speed task. After controlling for baseline differences in processing speed, age effects were detected on the AX-CPT. Smaller, but significant age effects were noted on the Stroop and stop-signal tasks, but no significant age effects were found on the garden path sentence and go no-go tasks. Intertask correlations were weak, providing little evidence for a homogenous or uniform construct of inhibition. The sensitivity of the AX-CPT to cognitive aging is discussed in the context of existing theories of cognitive aging. The authors suggest that deficits in context processing and utilization may underlie cognitive aging phenomena.

Lost ability to automatize task performance in old age

“…Perhaps older adults simply require more training or easier tasks to achieve the threshold of performance permitting task automatization. This position is loosely consistent with the view that aging is primarily associated with a generalized slowing (Cerella, 1985), rather than specific inabilities (Rush et al, 2006) such as an inability to automatize.…”

“…The present study tackled these issues, assessing whether older adults can perform a highly trained, easy discrimination task without attention. From the cognitive aging perspective, it is important to know whether age effects mainly reflect overall slowing (Cerella, 1985) or specific cognitive declines above and beyond overall slowing (Rush, Barch, & Braver, 2006). To this end, older adults practiced a choice reaction time (RT) task until their baseline performance was comparable to that of younger adults able to automatize performance of an entire task.…”

An electrophysiological study of response conflict processing across the lifespan: Assessing the roles of conflict monitoring, cue utilization, response anticipation, and response suppression

“…Extant findings suggest that deficits in resisting interference and in using cue information for attentional control are likely to contribute to lifespan changes in dealing with response conflicts during tasks involving response suppression (Braver, Barch, & Keys et al, 2001;Braver, Satpute, Rush, Racine, & Barch, 2005;Burke & Osborne, 2007;Dempster, 1992;Kane, Hasher, Stoltzfus, Zacks, & Connelly, 1994;Lorsbach & Reimer, 2008;Rush et al, 2006). More specifically, compared to younger adults, children and adolescents are less able to inhibit unwanted action tendencies, while older adults show greater difficulties in using contextual cues to aid the top-down attentional control of conflicting actions (Braver, Barch, & Gray et al, 2001;Braver, Barch, & Keys et al, 2001;Braver et al, 2005;Burke & Osborne, 2007;Houdé, 1995;Pascual-Leone, 1983;Rush et al, 2006;see Craik & Bialystok, 2006;Diamond, 2006;Geier & Luna, 2009 for reviews).…”

Effects of aging on interference control in selective attention and working memory

“…However, Verhaeghen and Meersman (1998) provided a meta-analysis that contradicts these findings. By using the AX continuous performance test, which evaluates subjects' ability to control a prepotent response tendency induced by context information, Rush et al (2006) provided no evidence of interference control failing in older adults.…”

“…The access function is evaluated through tasks that allow the experimenters to manipulate the activation level of irrelevant information, such as the Stroop task or the AX continuous performance test (Rush, Barch, & Braver, 2006). These procedures require a combination of interference control functions that act on external percepts and on prepotent responses, which complicates the evaluation of how efficiently each of these control mechanisms is applied by the subjects.…”