Making sense of age-related distractibility: The critical role of sensory modality

Guerreiro, Maria J. S.; Murphy, Dana R.; Gerven, Pascal W. M. Van

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.007

Cited by 52 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other authors investigated reaction times during unimodal or bimodal localization tasks (Hugenschmidt et al, 2009b; Campbell et al, 2010; Stephen et al, 2010; Dobreva et al, 2012; Wu et al, 2012) with spatial cueing (Guerreiro et al, 2012) or using peripheral vision (Cui et al, 2010; Dobreva et al, 2012) or the ability to remember or localize a stimulus in one modality while ignoring another modality (Diederich et al, 2008; Guerreiro et al, 2014, 2015). Other authors used judgment tasks; audiovisual temporal order judgment task (Setti et al, 2011b; de Boer-Schellekens and Vroomen, 2013; Fiacconi et al, 2013), audiovisual asynchrony judgment (Chan et al, 2014a) or audiovisual n -back task (Guerreiro and Van Gerven, 2011; Guerreiro et al, 2013). Finally, in some articles, participants had to perform a sound-induced flash illusion task (Setti et al, 2011a; DeLoss et al, 2013; McGovern et al, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, distractors or inaccurate information (e.g., visual bias) tended to have a greater influence on the performance of OA compared to YA, thus OA had more trouble ignoring irrelevant information (Hugenschmidt et al, 2009a; Guerreiro and Van Gerven, 2011; Dobreva et al, 2012; Wu et al, 2012; DeLoss et al, 2013; Guerreiro et al, 2013; McGovern et al, 2014). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, deficits in selective attention could explain the fact that OA were more distracted by stimuli within the same modality or in another modality as the attended stimulus (Furman et al, 2003; Poliakoff et al, 2006a; Townsend et al, 2006; Diederich et al, 2008; Hugenschmidt et al, 2009a; Peiffer et al, 2009; Guerreiro and Van Gerven, 2011; Setti et al, 2011a; Guerreiro et al, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015; DeLoss et al, 2013; McGovern et al, 2014). …”

Section: Discussion Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, data suggest that, in comparison to YA, they do not properly adjust information that is unreliable (disrupted or taken away) or non-informative (distractors). They continue to use all environmental information when they should not (Stelmach et al, 1989; Teasdale et al, 1991; Strupp et al, 1999; Redfern et al, 2001, 2009; Allison et al, 2006; Poliakoff et al, 2006a; Deshpande and Patla, 2007; Hugenschmidt et al, 2009a; Elliott et al, 2011; Guerreiro and Van Gerven, 2011; Berard et al, 2012; Dobreva et al, 2012; Wu et al, 2012; DeLoss et al, 2013; Guerreiro et al, 2013; Bisson et al, 2014; Deshpande and Zhang, 2014; Eikema et al, 2014; McGovern et al, 2014; Brodoehl et al, 2015). These results were seen in several tests assessing integration of all combinations of modalities found in this review.…”

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Dieuleveult

Siemonsma

Erp

et al. 2017

Front. Aging Neurosci.

147

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisensory integration (MSI) is the integration by the brain of environmental information acquired through more than one sense. Accurate MSI has been shown to be a key component of successful aging and to be crucial for processes underlying activities of daily living (ADLs). Problems in MSI could prevent older adults (OA) to age in place and live independently. However, there is a need to know how to assess changes in MSI in individuals. This systematic review provides an overview of tests assessing the effect of age on MSI in the healthy elderly population (aged 60 years and older). A literature search was done in Scopus. Articles from the earliest records available to January 20, 2016, were eligible for inclusion if assessing effects of aging on MSI in the healthy elderly population compared to younger adults (YA). These articles were rated for risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment. Out of 307 identified research articles, 49 articles were included for final review, describing 69 tests. The review indicated that OA maximize the use of multiple sources of information in comparison to YA (20 studies). In tasks that require more cognitive function, or when participants need to adapt rapidly to a situation, or when a dual task is added to the experiment, OA have problems selecting and integrating information properly as compared to YA (19 studies). Additionally, irrelevant or wrong information (i.e., distractors) has a greater impact on OA than on YA (21 studies). OA failing to weigh sensory information properly, has not been described in previous reviews. Anatomical changes (i.e., reduction of brain volume and differences of brain areas’ recruitment) and information processing changes (i.e., general cognitive slowing, inverse effectiveness, larger time window of integration, deficits in attentional control and increased noise at baseline) can only partly explain the differences between OA and YA regarding MSI. Since we have an interest in successful aging and early detection of MSI issues in the elderly population, the identified tests form a good starting point to develop a clinically useful toolkit to assess MSI in healthy OA.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Dieuleveult

Siemonsma

Erp

et al. 2017

Front. Aging Neurosci.

147

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Time of day can also play a role in the size of age differences: Most older adults are "morning types" who perform better in the morning than in the evening, and inhibitory function appears to be especially influenced by these circadian rhythms (Anderson et al, 2014;May and Hasher, 1998). Finally, Guerreiro et al (2010) have proposed that sensory modality may play an important role, although modality effects do not interact consistently with age and it is unclear what the boundary conditions might be (Guerreiro et al, 2012(Guerreiro et al, , 2013(Guerreiro et al, , 2014.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%