An Electrophysiological Study of Aging and Perceptual Letter-Matching.

Background: Previous studies on perceptual letter-matching have found that younger and older adults showed "fast-same" effects for response time and "false-different" effects for errors but the effects were more pronounced for older adults. According to the Noisy Operator Theory, internal noise in visual processing distorts "same" trials into appearing different whereas distortion for "different" trials does not affect performance. Older adults have a "noisier" representation of items within perceptual processing which can impact perceptual matching. However, EEG measures may provide a more direct measure of letter-matching decisions. Methods: We measured the P300 event-related potential (ERP) amplitude, an index of familiarity in stimulus categorization, and behavioral measures (response time and accuracy) to assess letter-matching performance. Results: Individuals responded faster to "same" trials than to "different" trials but were less accurate. Older adults showed similar P300 amplitudes across trial type whereas younger adults produced a larger amplitude for "same" than "different" trials, suggesting that older adults showed less familiarity for "same" trials than did younger adults - a prediction of the Noisy Operator Theory. Conclusions: These ERP results are consistent with the Noisy Operator Theory - suggesting that an age-related increase in internal noise affected letter-matching performance.

Are There Age Differences in Consolidated Episodic Memory?

Background/Study Context: While most aging research on memory uses a retention interval of one hour or less, episodic consolidation takes longer (e.g., 6-24 hours for synaptic consolidation). In three experiments, we examined age differences in recall followed by recognition in which the retention interval was varied in younger and older adults. METHODS: In Experiment 1 (n = 24 for both age groups), zero-, 1- and 24-hour retention intervals were used for recall for all participants, and a 24-hour retention interval was used for recognition. In Experiment 2 (n = 24 for both age groups), just a 24-hour retention interval was used. In Experiment 3 (n = 20 for both age groups), a within-subjects design was used in which participants recalled one word list after one hour and again after 24 hours, and recalled another word list just after 24 hours (with recognition for both conditions after the 24-hour recall). RESULTS: In Experiment 1, older adults recalled fewer words at both the 1- and 24-hour retention intervals, but the magnitude of the age difference did not differ. In Experiment 2 (just 24-hour retention interval), there were no age differences in recall. In Experiment 3, in the two-recall condition, older adults showed lower recall at both 1-hour and 24-hour retention intervals (but the magnitude of the age difference remained constant across retention interval). In the single-recall just 24-hour retention condition, there were no age differences. There were no age differences in recognition in any of the three experiments. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that recall declines for a 24-hour retention interval relative to a zero or one-hour retention interval (Experiments 1 and 3) for both age groups. However, when the first recall attempt occurs after a 24-hour retention interval, there are no age differences. These replicated results suggest that older adults do not benefit as much as younger adults from pre-consolidated rehearsal, but that rehearsal-based age differences do not increase in magnitude from the last rehearsal to memory consolidation. Furthermore, (along with), the present results indicate that there are no age differences in recall when the first recall attempt occurs after a long retention interval - when memory consolidation is likely to have occurred before the first retrieval attempt.

Age-related emotional bias in processing two emotionally valenced tasks.

Previous studies suggest that older adults process positive emotions more efficiently than negative emotions, whereas younger adults show the reverse effect. We examined whether this age-related difference in emotional bias still occurs when attention is engaged in two emotional tasks. We used a psychological refractory period paradigm and varied the emotional valence of Task 1 and Task 2. In both experiments, Task 1 was emotional face discrimination (happy vs. angry faces) and Task 2 was sound discrimination (laugh, punch, vs. cork pop in Experiment 1 and laugh vs. scream in Experiment 2). The backward emotional correspondence effect for positively and negatively valenced Task 2 on Task 1 was measured. In both experiments, younger adults showed a backward correspondence effect from a negatively valenced Task 2, suggesting parallel processing of negatively valenced stimuli. Older adults showed similar negativity bias in Experiment 2 with a more salient negative sound ("scream" relative to "punch"). These results are consistent with an arousal-bias competition model [Mather and Sutherland (Perspectives in Psychological Sciences 6:114-133, 2011)], suggesting that emotional arousal modulates top-down attentional control settings (emotional regulation) with age.

An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action?

We examined Goslin, Dixon, Fischer, Cangelosi, and Ellis's (Psychological Science 23:152-157, 2012) claim that the object-based correspondence effect (i.e., faster keypress responses when the orientation of an object's graspable part corresponds with the response location than when it does not) is the result of object-based attention (vision-action binding). In Experiment 1, participants determined the category of a centrally located object (kitchen utensil vs. tool), as in Goslin et al.'s study. The handle orientation (left vs. right) did or did not correspond with the response location (left vs. right). We found no correspondence effect on the response times (RTs) for either category. The effect was also not evident in the P1 and N1 components of the event-related potentials, which are thought to reflect the allocation of early visual attention. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 for centrally located objects, even when the object was presented 45 times (33 more times than in Exp. 1). Critically, the correspondence effects on RTs, P1s, and N1s emerged only when the object was presented peripherally, so that the object handle was clearly located to the left or right of fixation. Experiment 3 provided further evidence that the effect was observed only for the base-centered objects, in which the handle was clearly positioned to the left or right of center. These findings contradict those of Goslin et al. and provide no evidence that an intended grasping action modulates visual attention. Instead, the findings support the spatial-coding account of the object-based correspondence effect.