The Preservation of Response Inhibition Aftereffects in a Location-based Spatial Negative Priming Task: Younger Versus Older Adults

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2014 Feb 18

PMID 24531862

Citations 1

Authors

Eric Buckolz

Michael Lok

Ben Kajaste

Cameron Edgar

Michael Khan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Younger (M = 21 years) and older (M = 74 years) adults completed a spatial negative priming (SNP) task where (central) events (i.e., target or distractor) are presented in trial pairs: first the prime and then the probe. Free-choice trials were included (1 location: 2 permissible responses), which allowed us to isolate response inhibition and its consequent inhibitory aftereffects (i.e., current inhibition interferes with later related processing-e.g., SNP). The inhibitory aftereffects associated with the suppression of responses activated by distractor-occupied locations were highly comparable for younger and older adults; including similar SNP effect sizes, a significant tendency to select against former distractor (inhibited) responses (within-hand finger options) on free-choice trials, and latency delays attributable solely to the use of self-selected distractor responses. Aftereffects generated by target-occupied prime trials locations were also the same for both age groups; recently executed target responses were selected for and produced faster responding (within hand). Aftereffects were absent on between-hand free-choice trials and, overall, response selection determinants on free-choice trials matched for older and younger adults.

Citing Articles

The time-course of distractor processing in auditory spatial negative priming.

Moller M, Mayr S, Buchner A Psychol Res. 2015; 80(5):744-56.

PMID: 26233234 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0685-6.

References

McDowd J . Aging, inhibitory processes, and negative priming. J Gerontol. 1991; 46(6):P340-5. DOI: 10.1093/geronj/46.6.p340. View

Kubo-Kawai N, Kawai N . Elimination of the enhanced Simon effect for older adults in a three-choice situation: ageing and the Simon effect in a go/no-go Simon task. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009; 63(3):452-64. DOI: 10.1080/17470210902990829. View

Tipper S, Brehaut J, Driver J . Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990; 16(3):492-504. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.16.3.492. View

Park J, Kanwisher N . Negative priming for spatial locations: identity mismatching, not distractor inhibition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(3):613-23. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.20.3.613. View

Mayr S, Buchner A, Moller M, Hauke R . Spatial and identity negative priming in audition: evidence of feature binding in auditory spatial memory. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 73(6):1710-32. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0138-2. View

Buckolz E, Goldfarb A, Khan M . The use of a distractor-assigned response slows later responding in a location negative priming task. Percept Psychophys. 2004; 66(5):837-45. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194977. View

de Jong R, Liang C, Lauber E . Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(4):731-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.731. View

Baylis G, Tipper S, Houghton G . Externally cued and internally generated selection: differences in distractor analysis and inhibition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 23(6):1617-30. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.23.6.1617. View

Schlaghecken F, Rowley L, Sembi S, Simmons R, Whitcomb D . The negative compatibility effect: A case for self-inhibition. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2010; 3(1-2):227-40. PMC: 2864980. DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0027-y. View

10.

Stoltzfus E, Hasher L, Zacks R, Ulivi M, Goldstein D . Investigations of inhibition and interference in younger and older adults. J Gerontol. 1993; 48(4):P179-88. DOI: 10.1093/geronj/48.4.p179. View

11.

Kramer A, HUMPHREY D, Larish J, Logan G, Strayer D . Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. Psychol Aging. 1994; 9(4):491-512. View

12.

Buckolz E, Boulougouris A, Khan M . Influence of probe-trial selection on the location negative priming effect. Can J Exp Psychol. 2002; 56(4):273-82. DOI: 10.1037/h0087403. View

13.

Deutsch J, Deutsch D . Some theoretical considerations. Psychol Rev. 1963; 70:80-90. DOI: 10.1037/h0039515. View

14.

Germain S, Collette F . Dissociation of perceptual and motor inhibitory processes in young and elderly participants using the Simon task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008; 14(6):1014-21. DOI: 10.1017/S135561770808123X. View

15.

Connelly S, Hasher L . Aging and the inhibition of spatial location. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993; 19(6):1238-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.19.6.1238. View

16.

TREISMAN A . Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychol Rev. 1969; 76(3):282-99. DOI: 10.1037/h0027242. View

17.

Buckolz E, Edgar C, Kajaste B, Lok M, Khan M . Inhibited prime-trial distractor responses solely produce the visual spatial negative priming effect. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012; 74(8):1632-43. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0366-0. View

18.

Buckolz E, Avramidis C, Fitzgeorge L . Prime-trial processing demands and their impact on distractor processing in a spatial negative priming task. Psychol Res. 2007; 72(3):235-48. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-007-0107-5. View

19.

Schlaghecken F, Birak K, Maylor E . Correction to Schlaghecken, Birak, and Maylor (2011). Psychol Aging. 2012; 27(2):541-2. DOI: 10.1037/a0028835. View

20.

Milliken B, Tipper S, Houghton G, Lupianez J . Attending, ignoring, and repetition: on the relation between negative priming and inhibition of return. Percept Psychophys. 2000; 62(6):1280-96. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212130. View