Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23982128211073427
Brain and Neuroscience Advances
Volume 6: 1 –11
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/23982128211073427
journals.sagepub.com/home/bna
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Introduction
To adequately perform a complex task such as driving a car, one
must focus on driving (e.g. minding roads and traffic signals)
while simultaneously ignoring task-irrelevant information, such
as billboards or incoming text messages. Accordingly, selective
attention involves two processes, the ability to selectively focus
on task-relevant information and the ability to inhibit task-irrele-
vant information, also known as inhibitory control (Geng, 2014;
Hasher et al., 2007; Tipper, 1992). Both processes are influenced
by many factors, but inhibitory control has been studied to a
lesser extent compared to attentional focus. Some of the factors
that influence inhibitory control include the relative timing of
stimuli, spatial separation, target-distractor similarity, and age-
related decline in the ability to ignore irrelevant information
(Campbell et al., 2012; Kane et al., 1994; Mayr, 2001; Rabbitt,
1965; Störmer et al., 2013).
Age-related cognitive decline in attention has largely been
attributed to deficiencies in inhibitory control, with older adults
declining in their capacity to inhibit the processing of irrelevant
information (Amer and Hasher, 2014; Bloemendaal et al., 2016;
Eich et al., 2016; Hasher and Zacks, 1988; Kramer et al., 1999;
Lustig et al., 2006; McDowd, 1997; Madden et al., 1996; Mayr,
2001; Plude and Hoyer, 1986). Illustrating this form of cognitive
decline, older individuals exhibit difficulties performing several
types of selective attention tasks (i.e. selecting and focusing on a
stimulus of interest while inhibiting irrelevant information). For
instance, Farkas and Hoyer (1980) used a card-sorting version of
a visual search task to show that older adults were differentially
slower to respond when presented with a distractor card that was
Ageing and selective inhibition of irrelevant
information in an attention-demanding
rapid serial visual presentation task
Maegen E. Walker , Jonas F. Vibell, Andrew D. Dewald
and Scott Sinnett
Abstract
Attention involves both an ability to selectively focus on relevant information and simultaneously ignore irrelevant information (i.e. inhibitory
control). Many factors impact inhibitory control such as individual differences, relative timing of stimuli presentation, distractor characteristics, and
participant age. Previous research with young adults responding to an attention-demanding rapid serial visual presentations of pictures superimposed
with task-irrelevant words evaluated the extent to which unattended information may be subject to inhibitory control. Surprise recognition tests
following the rapid serial visual presentation task showed that recognition for unattended words presented with non-targets (i.e. non-aligned or
‘NA’ words) during the rapid serial visual presentation task were recognised at chance levels. However, when the unattended words were infrequently
paired with the attended picture targets (i.e. target-aligned or ‘TA’ words), recognition rates were significantly below chance and significantly lower
compared to NA words, suggesting selective inhibitory control for the previously unattended TA words. The current study adapted this paradigm
to compare healthy younger and older adults’ ability to engage in inhibitory control. In line with previous research, younger adults demonstrated
selective inhibition with recognition rates for TA words significantly lower than NA words and chance, while NA words were recognised at chance
levels. However, older adults showed no difference in recognition rates between word types (TA versus NA). Rather all items were recognised at rates
significantly below chance suggesting inhibited recognition for all unattended words, regardless of when they were presented during the primary task.
Finally, older adults recognised significantly fewer NA words compared to young adults. These findings suggest that older adults may experience a
decline in their ability to selectively inhibit the processing of irrelevant information, while maintaining the capacity to exercise global inhibition over
unattended lexical information.
Keywords
Ageing, attention, inhibitory control, cognition, rapid serial visual presentation task
Received: 24 July 2021; accepted: 17 December 2021
Department of Psychology, University of Hawaiʻi, Honolulu, HI, USA
Corresponding author:
Maegen E. Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaiʻi,
Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
Email: maegenw@hawaii.edu
1073427BNA0010.1177/23982128211073427Brain and Neuroscience AdvancesWalker et al.
research-article2022
Research Paper
2 Brain and Neuroscience Advances
very similar to the target card. This finding suggests that older
adults are more likely to be distracted by these items, indicating
a reduced ability to inhibit irrelevant items from re-orienting
attention. Additional research has demonstrated that, as adults
age, attentional allocation may become impaired when viewing
displays containing moving items (Folk and Lincourt, 1996;
Watson and Maylor, 2002). In this case, older individuals appear
to have more difficulty visually marking (see Watson and
Humphreys, 1997, 1998) the target stimulus. Thus, it appears that
older adults have a reduced ability to inhibit processing of previ-
ously viewed distractor objects such that they continue to capture
attention during the visual search task.
The neurological underpinnings of older people’s inability to
exercise inhibitory control has been investigated by Amer et al.
(2016), who used functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI)
to look at the neural correlates of inhibitory control in older and
younger adults. They focused on two networks proposed to con-
trol externally oriented attention (dorsal attention network; DAN)
and internally focused attention (default mode network; DMN).
Their findings suggest that, for older adults, less distractibility is
linked to greater DAN-DNM anticorrelation, while for younger
adults, greater distractibility is linked to decreased DAN-DNM
anticorrelation. The differing patterns of neural responses pro-
vide additional reasons to explore how this might be expressed at
a behavioural level.
Many of the experiments investigating inhibitory control
among older adults (Banich et al., 2000a; Bugg et al., 2007;
Laguë-Beauvais et al., 2013; Mayas et al., 2012; Milham et al.,
2002; Spieler et al., 1996) required participants to facilitate the
relevant feature of the visual stimulus while simultaneously
inhibiting the irrelevant feature, which has proven difficult for
elderly individuals. However, these behavioural methods have
two important limitations: First, it is difficult to isolate facilita-
tory from inhibitory mechanisms given that these paradigms do
not offer an effective method for dissociating these two pro-
cesses. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether the attentional sys-
tem fails to facilitate processing of targets; fails to inhibit
processing of distractors; or if instead the decline in performance
for elderly participants is related to a deficit in both processes.
Second, previously utilised behavioural methods evaluate the
function of inhibitory control by looking at rates of online dis-
traction induced by the irrelevant stimuli during task perfor-
mance (e.g. Stroop, 1935). That is, the ability to inhibit processing
of the irrelevant item is assessed by examining accuracy or reac-
tion time (RT) to a target that is presented at the same time as the
distracting item, with lower accuracy and/or slower RTs indicat-
ing higher rates of distraction and reduced inhibitory control.
While this is useful information, the extent to the level of which
these to-be ignored items are processed and subsequently stored
in long-term memory is difficult to determine.
Directly comparing selective attention and inhibitory control,
Dewald and colleagues modified a dual-task paradigm (see
Dewald et al., 2011, 2013; Walker et al., 2014, 2017) in which
participants were presented with a rapid serial visual presentation
(RSVP) of attended and ignored items. During the primary task,
participants monitored the RSVP stream for immediate picture
repetitions (i.e. n-back task, see Kirchner, 1958) while ignoring
superimposed words. Immediately after the primary task was
completed, a surprise recognition test determined the extent to
which participants are able to identify the previously ignored
words. This paradigm overcomes the ambiguities of previous
studies by systematically varying the frequency with which irrel-
evant distractor items (i.e. ignored words) are presented simulta-
neously (i.e. paired) with attended target items (i.e. immediate
picture repetitions) and has been shown to measure both inhibi-
tory (i.e. inhibitory control) and facilitatory mechanisms (atten-
tional control) (Dewald et al., 2011, 2013).
Research using this paradigm with young adults showed that
infrequently pairing the ignored distractor items with targets in
the attended task leads to inhibited processing of these distractor
items when compared with ignored distractor items that are not
paired with targets (see Dewald et al., 2011)1. The extent to which
the irrelevant information may have been processed is then eval-
uated through the use of a surprise recognition test for the previ-
ously ignored distractor items. Items that are recognised at rates
significantly below chance during the recognition test are inter-
preted as being inhibited both during encoding, which takes place
during the primary task, and during retrieval, which takes place
during the recognition test (see Dewald et al., 2011). This would
suggest that, in young adults, inhibitory control can operate in a
selective manner by exercising more stringent filtering on the
processing of salient irrelevant information when it is presented
simultaneously with task-relevant targets in an attention-demand-
ing task (see also Tsushima et al., 2008).
The current study employs the attention-demanding RSVP
dual-task paradigm used by Dewald et al. (2011) to compare
selective attention and inhibitory control in healthy older and
younger adults. Due to ageing, we predict that older adults will
exhibit deficits in both the primary task and the surprise recogni-
tion test (Andrés et al., 2008; Bugg et al., 2007; Hasher and
Zacks, 1988; Kramer et al., 1999; Laguë-Beauvais et al., 2013;
Lustig et al., 2006; Madden et al., 1996; Mayr, 2001; Plude and
Hoyer, 1986). Specifically, and in line with a general slowdown
in processing (Salthouse, 1996), we expect that older adults will
exhibit significantly slower RTs and overall lower accuracy in the
primary task. In the surprise recognition test, a decline in inhibi-
tory control among older adults should lead to disproportionately
higher recognition rates for words previously paired with target
pictures (i.e. target-aligned words) from the primary task com-
pared to younger adults. The predicted findings suggest two
things: (1) younger adults inhibit the processing of irrelevant
information that is simultaneously presented (i.e. paired) with an
attended, relevant, task-target to a greater extent than irrelevant
information paired with attended non-targets – again, demon-
strating selective inhibitory control, and (2) that inhibitory con-
trol in older adults is compromised, compared to younger adults,
demonstrated by the inability to inhibit the processing of target-
aligned items. As a result, disproportionately more irrelevant
information is processed and subsequently recognised at a higher
rate during the surprise recognition test when compared with
younger adults’ performance.
Methods
Participants
Thirty-nine healthy young adults (mean age = 20.84,
SD = 3.06 years, range = 18–34) were recruited from undergradu-
ate courses at the University of Hawai`i at Mānoa in exchange for
course credit. The results from one participant were excluded
Walker et al. 3
from the analyses due to a failure to complete the surprise recog-
nition task. The final analyses were conducted with the remain-
ing 38 young adults (Males: N = 16, mean age = 20.69, SD = 2.24,
range = 18–25; Females: N = 22, mean age = 20.95, SD = 3.59,
range = 18–34).
Twenty-six healthy older adult participants (mean age of
71.88, SD = 8.22 years, range = 60–90; Males: N = 7, mean
age = 72, SD = 9.85, range = 60–90; Females: N = 19, mean
age = 71.84, SD = 7.84, range = 60–87) were recruited, on a volun-
tary basis, from local retirement communities around Honolulu,
Hawai`i, as well as from continuing education programmes for
seniors at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. All participants
were naïve to the experiment and had normal, or corrected to
normal, vision and hearing. As per self-report and confirmed by
staff (where appropriate), none of the older participants suffered
from any diagnosed neurological disorder.
Participants were presented with a written informed consent
document prior to study enrolment, reminded of their voluntary
participation and right to withdrawal at any time, and provided
with ample opportunity to ask questions and receive clarifying
information, where necessary. This study was approved by and
carried out in compliance with the recommendations and guide-
lines of the University of Hawai’i Office of Research Compliance
and Institutional Review Board (CHS number: 21455), in accord-
ance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Stimuli
A total of 50 pictures (approximately 7° visual angle) were
selected from the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) picture data-
base (i.e. attended stimuli). Each picture was superimposed with a
single English word (i.e. ignored distractor items) selected from a
pool of high-frequency words retrieved from the MRC psycholin-
guistic database (Wilson, 1988). The words had an average length
of 5 letters (range = 4–6) and average frequency of 120 per million
(range = 28–686) and were superimposed over the pictures in
bold, capitalised letters in Arial font (24 points). Care was taken to
ensure that picture-word combinations did not share any direct
semantic relationship (see Dewald et al., 2011, 2013; Sinnett
et al., 2009, for examples using similar stimulus parameters).
Primary task
Attended stimuli. The 50 pictures were duplicated resulting in
2 copies of each picture (i.e. picture pairs) for a total of 100 pic-
ture stimuli. To ensure that the task was sufficiently demanding,
all pictures were randomly rotated ±30 degrees from their origi-
nal orientation (see Rees et al., 1999). The primary task consisted
of 2 blocks of 100 picture-word combinations. Each block con-
tained half (25) of the picture-word pairs presented as immediate
picture repetitions. These immediate picture repetitions served as
the targets for the attended task. The remaining 25 pairs were
randomly inserted into the visual stream to serve as non-targets.
This process was replicated for the second experimental block
using the same stimuli, but in a randomised order according to
the following logic: The 25 picture pairs that were presented as
immediate picture repetition targets in the first block appeared as
separate randomly inserted non-targets in the second block, and
those that appeared as non-targets in the first block were pre-
sented as immediate picture repetition targets in the second block
(i.e. picture pairs that were identification targets in the first block
were non-repeating pictures in the second block and vice versa).
Therefore, each of the original 50 pictures was presented four
times, once as a target repetition pair in the first block, then again
as non-repeating pictures in the second block. All groups of
words were pseudo-randomised and care was taken to ensure
similar average word frequencies.
Ignored distractor items. One hundred words were randomly
selected and superimposed on top of the pictures. These 100
words were randomly split in 2 separate and equally sized groups
(i.e. 50 words each with similar average word frequencies). One
group of words was randomly selected and superimposed on the
immediate picture repetitions (i.e. targets), serving as the target-
aligned (TA) words, while the second group of words were super-
imposed on the non-repeating non-targets in the stream, serving
as non-aligned (NA) words (both groups had similar average
word frequencies). Each block contained 25 immediate target
picture repetitions and accompanying superimposed TA words.
The remaining 25 words from the TA group were superimposed
over non-repeating pictures along with the 50 words from the NA
group to create the remaining 75 non-repeating combined pic-
ture-word stimuli for that block. This process was repeated for
the second block but the 25 words that were TA in the first block
now served as NA words in the second block and vice versa. The
NA words were always presented on top of non-repeating pic-
tures in both blocks (i.e. they were never paired with picture rep-
etition targets); all words were presented an equal number of
times. None of the NA words that appeared in the surprise recog-
nition test had been paired with a target at any point during the
primary task. The items defined as TA were the only items to ever
appear with targets. This experimental design is a more conserva-
tive approach to assess the effects of target alignment and was
implemented in accordance with previous studies that have uti-
lised this paradigm (Dewald et al., 2011, 2013; Dewald and Sin-
nett, 2011a, 2011b; Sinnett et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2017). Six
versions of the experiment were created by counterbalancing pic-
ture and word pairs, stimuli presentation order, and ensuring that
each word was presented as either TA or NA across the various
versions (see Dewald et al., 2011).
Surprise recognition test. The surprise recognition test for the
ignored words was administered immediately after participants
had completed the primary task of detecting immediate picture
repetition targets. The surprise test contained 50 words from the
primary task along with 50 never before seen foil words, selected
from the same database, and matched in length and word fre-
quency (Wilson, 1988). Due to the high number of words pre-
sented during the primary task, and to avoid any concerns
regarding fatigue, two types of surprise recognition tests were
created for each version of the experiment, rather than a single,
but much longer surprise test including all possible word types.
One surprise test contained only the 50 TA words along with 50
foil words. The other recognition test contained only the 50 NA
words, which never appeared with a target picture repetition dur-
ing the primary task, along with 50 foil words. Each participant
was randomly assigned and tested on one of the two word types
(i.e. between-subjects, TA words only or NA words only). As
such, there was no opportunity for participants to conflate TA and
NA items during the recognition portion of the experiment. The
4 Brain and Neuroscience Advances
words in the recognition tasks were randomised and displayed
one at a time, in bold, capitalised letters in Arial font at a size of
24 points (i.e. identical to their initial presentation in the primary
task, but without the accompanying pictures).
Procedure. Participants were seated in front of a computer with
the screen approximately 60 cm away. They were then presented
with an RSVP of the picture-word stream, using DMDX software
(Forster and Forster, 2003). Participants were instructed to ignore
the superimposed words and focus their attention only on the pic-
tures. They were required to respond by clicking the left mouse
button with their preferred hand when they noticed a picture
immediately repeat in the visual stream. Each item in the picture-
word stream was presented for 500 ms followed by a 150 ms
inter-stimulus interval (ISI; blank screen) for a stimulus onset
asynchrony (SOA) of 650 ms (see Figure 1).
Participants were given two training blocks of eight trials,
using separate stimuli from the experimental blocks in the pri-
mary task, and were allowed to repeat training until they were
familiar and comfortable with the task. The primary task began
immediately after participants completed their training session.
Upon completion of the primary task, the surprise word recogni-
tion test was administered to all participants. Each word remained
on the screen until a response (key press) was given. Participants
were instructed to press the ‘B’ key if they recalled seeing the
word during the primary task or, instead, the ‘V’ key if they did
not recall seeing the word before (response keys counterbal-
anced). All participants were instructed to indicate their response
as quickly and accurately as possible and all participants were
monitored to ensure compliance with experimental protocol.
Statistical analyses. Performance on the primary task was
assessed via a comparison between age groups and against
chance. During the primary task, a target appeared, on average, in
one of every 15 trials, therefore chance was defined as the prob-
ability of obtaining a hit in any given presentation of 15 trials (i.e.
7%). Independent-sample between-subjects t-tests were con-
ducted to evaluate potential differences in the proportion of
correct target identifications (i.e. hits), false alarms (FAs), and
RTs to targets between young and old participants (see also
Walker et al., 2017) and single-sample within-subject t-tests were
used to evaluate performance against chance for each age group.
A hit in the primary task was defined as a response to an immedi-
ate repetition in the RSVP of pictures (i.e. mouse click) occurring
within 1000 ms of initial stimulus presentation. This conservative
criterion was applied in order to accommodate the possibility of
late, yet accurate, responses to targets by participants. Bonferroni
corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.
With regard to the surprise recognition test, independent
t-tests were performed to evaluate potential differences in signal
detection sensitivity (i.e. sensitivity), response bias, discrimina-
tion accuracy, foil word identification, and previously ignored
word identification between young and old participants.
Sensitivity and response bias were determined by calculating d′
(d-prime) and β (beta), respectively, for each participant and
compared between young and older adults. Discrimination accu-
racy between old and new items was determined by calculating
the proportion of combined hits and correct rejections (CR) for
each age group and comparing performance between the young
and older adults. The ability of young and older adults to identify
foil items was evaluated by comparing the proportion of CRs
between age groups, and the identification of previously ignored
items was assessed by comparing the proportion of hits between
age groups.
Furthermore, because our interest was focused on determin-
ing potential differences in RT and recognition accuracy for TA
and NA words between young and old adults, statistical analyses
included two separate 2 × 2 analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
comparing age (young and old) and word type (TA and NA) as
between subjects factors with RT and recognition accuracy as
dependent variables. Our analyses also include pre-planned pair-
wise comparisons between recognition accuracy and RT for all
previously ignored words (TA versus NA) within and between
each age group and against chance via t-tests. The surprise recog-
nition tests contained half old (i.e. either TA or NA) and half new
(i.e. foil) words, therefore, chance performance was 50%. These
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the primary task. Immediately repeated pictures serve as the attended task targets while superimposed words
are the ignored distractor items. Words appearing with attended task targets are TA words (i.e. ‘City’ and ‘List’); all other words are NA words.
Walker et al. 5
analyses were designed to assess overall performance on word
types both within and across age groups and align with analogous
analyses conducted using similar designs (Dewald et al., 2011,
2013; Dewald and Sinnett, 2012, 2013; Walker et al., 2014,
2017). Bonferroni corrections were applied to individual analy-
ses to account for multiple comparisons.
Finally, in order to determine how accuracy results may
change as a function of age, four linear regression analyses were
performed comparing age range (young or old) and recognition
accuracy for previously ignored word types (TA or NA). As
before, Bonferroni corrections were applied to individual analy-
ses to account for multiple comparisons.
Results
Primary task performance
Young adults obtained significantly more hits than older adults
(young adults: M = 0.59, SE = 0.03 versus older adults: M = 0.37,
SE = 0.03) (t(62) = 4.64, p < 0.001, d = 1.18); however, both age
groups detected targets at a rate significantly better than chance
(i.e. 7%) (young adults: (t(37) = 18.08, p < 0.001, d = 2.93), older
adults: (t(25) = 9.29, p < 0.001, d = 1.82)). There was no signifi-
cant difference in FA rates for young adults compared to older
adults (young adults: M = 0.01, SE = 0.002 versus older adults:
M = 0.01, SE = 0.003) (t(62) = 0.783, p = 0.44, d = 0.20) and both
age groups had FA rates significantly lower than chance (young
adults: (t(37) = 39.49, p < 0.001, d = 6.41), older adults:
(t(25) = 21.17, p < 0.001, d = 4.15)). This suggests that the lower
accuracy score observed in the older adults can be attributed to an
overall lower number of hits compared to the younger adults (see
Figure 2), indicating that the primary task may have been more
difficult for the older adults. With the exception of the between
group FA analysis, all reported p-values met significance criteria
for multiple comparison corrections (i.e. p < 0.007).
Next, response latencies during the primary task were evalu-
ated by comparing RT to identified targets between young and old
adults. Young adults were significantly faster to respond compared
to older adults (young adults: M = 412 ms, SE = 4.74 versus older
adults: M = 435 ms, SE = 7.77) (t(62) = 2.68, p < 0.01, d = 0.69).
Surprise recognition test
Overall surprise recognition test word discrimination accu-
racy. There was no significant difference in d′ between young
and older adults (young adults: M = 0.12, SE = 0.05 versus older
adults: M = 0.03, SE = 0.08) (t(62) = 1.12, p = 0.27, d = 0.28), sug-
gesting that the task was quite challenging and that there were
similar sensitivity levels between these two age groups. Like-
wise, there was no significant difference in β between young and
older adults (young adults: M = 0.07, SE = 0.04 versus older
adults: M = 0.06, SE = 0.04) (t(62) = 0.08, p = 0.94, d = 0.02), indi-
cating that both age groups applied similar response criterions
(see Macmillan, 2002; Macmillan and Creelman, 1990, 2004;
Stanislaw and Todorov, 1999). Analysis of discrimination accu-
racy (Hits + CR) corroborated the d′ results, showing no signifi-
cant difference between age groups (young adults: M = 0.52,
SE = 0.01 versus older adults: M = 0.50, SE = 0.02) (t(62) = 1.10,
p = 0.28, d = 0.28).
Next, focusing on participants’ ability to explicitly identify
foil items (i.e. CRs) during the surprise recognition test, we found
no significant differences between young and older adults (young
adults: M = 0.63, SE = 0.02 versus older adults: M = 0.68,
SE = 0.04) (t(62) = 1.04, p = 0.30, d = 0.29). Finally, recognition
performance on correct identification of previously presented
words only (i.e. hits only, excluding foil words) between young
and older adults was evaluated. There was no significant differ-
ence in hit rates between the two age groups (young adults:
M = 0.41, SE = 0.03 versus older adults: M = 0.33, SE = 0.03)
(t(62) = 1.82, p = 0.07, d = 0.46).
Figure 2. Box plots depicting mean (centre dot), median, quartiles, and range of target detection rates (i.e. hits) on the primary task between
young and old participants. On average, older adults responded to significantly fewer targets compared to young adults. Both age groups had hit
rates significantly higher than chance (i.e. 7%, indicated by the dashed line).
6 Brain and Neuroscience Advances
Taken together, these findings suggest that both young and
older adults had comparable levels of sensitivity (d′) and discrim-
ination accuracy, employed similar response strategies (β), and
they were equally able to identify previously seen targets and foil
items during the surprise recognition task. The primary purpose
of this study was to explore possible age-related differences in
recognition rates between TA and NA items. Therefore, the fol-
lowing analyses focus on accuracy performance and RTs for
these items specifically.
Overall surprise recognition test accuracy. In order to assess
whether age modulated word recognition depending on how it
was presented during the primary task (i.e. either TA or NA), a
2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted on surprise recognition test per-
formance for previously presented words only (i.e. excluding
foil words) with age (young versus old) and target alignment
(TA versus NA) as between subject factors, and accuracy as the
dependent variable. There was a marginal main effect for age
(young adults: M = 0.41, SE = 0.02 versus older adults: M = 0.33,
SE = 0.04) (F(1, 30) = 3.92, p = 0.06, η2 = 0.12), suggesting that
older adults may have recognised fewer previously ignored
words overall compared to younger adults. There was no main
effect for target alignment (TA: M = 0.35, SE = 0.03 versus NA:
M = 0.40, SE = 0.03) (F(1, 30) = 1.18, p = 0.29, η2 = 0.02) indicat-
ing that overall TA word recognition was not significantly differ-
ent from NA word recognition, and no interaction (F(1,
30) = 0.43, p = 0.52, η2 = 0.01). Although an interaction was not
observed, in order to assess any possible influence of age on
later surprise recognition rates between TA and NA words, pre-
planned t-tests were conducted on accuracy performance for
each age group.
Young adult TA versus NA surprise recognition test accuracy.
Performance scores were obtained by averaging the total number
of hits (i.e. correct identification of TA and NA words). Consis-
tent with findings from Dewald et al. (2011), younger adults rec-
ognised all words (TA and NA combined) at rates significantly
lower than chance (M = 0.41, SE = 0.02, t(37) = 4.15, p < 0.001,
d = 0.67). Recognition for TA words only (n = 19, M = 0.37,
SE = 0.03) was significantly lower than chance (t(18) = 3.85,
p < 0.001, d = 0.88). Recognition for NA words only (n = 19,
M = 0.44, SE = 0.03) was marginally different from chance
(t(18) = 2.02, p = 0.06, d = 0.46). Finally, recognition for TA words
was significantly lower than NA words (t(36) = 1.71, p = 0.04,
d = 0.55) (see Figure 3(a)).
Older adult TA versus NA surprise recognition test accuracy.
As with the younger adults, older adults recognised all words (TA
and NA combined) at rates significantly lower than chance
(M = 0.33, SE = 0.03, t(25) = 9.33, p < 0.001, d = 1.83). Impor-
tantly, recognition for TA words (n = 13, M = 0.32, SE = 0.06) and
NA words (n = 13, M = 0.34, SE = 0.05) were both significantly
lower than chance (TA words: t(12) = 5.89, p < 0.001, d = 1.63)
and (NA words: t(12) = 7.18, p < 0.001, d = 1.99), respectively.
Unlike the younger adults, recognition for TA words was not sig-
nificantly different from NA words (t(24) = 0.253, p = 0.40,
d = 0.09) (see Figure 3(b)).
TA and NA surprise recognition test accuracy between age
groups. Next, in order to determine if there was a significant
difference in recognition performance for TA and NA items
between age groups, we compared recognition rates for each item
(TA and NA, separately) between young and older adults. There
Figure 3. (a) Box plots depicting mean (centre dot), median, quartiles, and range of recognition rates for TA words compared to NA words for young
adults. On average, TA words were recognised significantly less often than NA words; NA words were recognised around chance levels (i.e. 50%)
while TA words were recognised significantly below chance. (b) Box plots depicting mean (centre dot), median, quartiles, and range of recognition
rates for TA words compared to NA words for older adults. There was no significant difference in recognition rates between word types; however, all
words were recognised at rates significantly below chance (i.e. 50%).
Walker et al. 7
was no significant difference in recognition rates for TA items
between young and older adults (young adults: M = 0.37,
SE = 0.03 versus older adults: M = 0.32, SE = 0.06) (t(30) = 0.73,
p = 0.24, d = 0.26) suggesting similar rates of inhibition for TA
items between age groups. There was a significant difference in
recognition rates for NA items between young and older adults
(young adults: M = 0.44, SE = 0.03 versus older adults: M = 0.34,
SE = 0.05) (t(30) = 1.96, p = 0.03, d = 0.71) (see Figure 4), suggest-
ing that older adults recognised fewer NA items compared to
young adults. In concert with the individual analyses and the
marginal main effect of age in the ANOVA, these findings sug-
gest that the differences noted in overall performance between
age groups can be attributed to older adults recognising fewer NA
items than young adults.
Overall surprise recognition test speed. To assess whether
age modulated RT to TA and NA words during the surprise recog-
nition test, a similar 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted on surprise
recognition test RT for previously presented words only (i.e.
excluding foil words) with age (young versus old) and tar-
get alignment (TA versus NA) as between subject factors, and RT
speed as the dependent variable. There was a significant main
effect for age (young adults: M = 1101 ms, SE = 53.67 versus older
adults: M = 1949 ms, SE = 159.71) (F(1, 30) = 24.41, p < 0.001,
η2 = 0.45), suggesting that older adults were slower to respond
during the surprise recognition test compared to young adults.
Again, there was no main effect for target alignment indicating
that overall RT to TA words (M = 1517 ms, SE = 139) was not sig-
nificantly different than RT to NA words (M = 1394, SE = 106)
(F(1, 30) = 1.40, p = 0.247, η2 = 0.01), and no interaction (F(1,
30) = 0.613, p = 0.440, η2 = 0.01).
TA and NA surprise recognition test speed between age
groups. In order to assess whether age modulated response
latencies to previously presented words during the surprise rec-
ognition test, we compared overall speed performance (TA and
NA) between age groups. There was a significant difference in
RT to previously presented words between young and older
adults (young adults: M = 1117 ms, SE = 50 versus older adults:
M = 1949 ms, SE = 159) (t(62) = 5.74, p < 0.001, d = 1.46). This
trend continued when comparing RT to TA words (young adults:
M = 1141 ms, SE = 77 versus older adults: M = 2067 ms, SE =
261) (t(30) = 3.96, p < 0.001 d = 1.43) and NA words (young
adults: M = 1094 ms, SE = 66 versus older adults: M = 1832 ms,
SE = 189) (t(30) = 4.22, p < 0.001 d = 1.52) specifically between
the two age groups. There was no significant difference in RT
between TA and NA words within each age group (all p > 0.47).
These findings suggest that older adults were slower to respond
during the surprise recognition test compared to younger
adults, but target alignment did not modulate RT within age
groups.
Young and older adult surprise recognition test age and
accuracy linear regressions. To determine whether surprise
recognition test accuracy rates vary as a function of age, linear
regression analyses were performed with predictor variable age
(years) and outcome variable accuracy (proportion of hits) for
each word type (TA or NA) for both young and older adults. For
younger adults, age was not a significant predictor for TA accu-
racy scores (b = 0.008, 95% CI (−0.01, 0.03), t(17) = 0.81,
p = 0.43), and it failed to explain a significant proportion of vari-
ance in TA accuracy (R2 = 0.04, F(1, 17) = 0.65, p = 0.43). Like-
wise, age failed to predict NA accuracy scores (b = 0.008, 95% CI
(−0.01, 0.03), t(17) = 0.78, p = 0.45) or a significant proportion of
variance in NA accuracy (R2 = 0.04, F(1, 17) = 0.61, p = 0.45).
These findings suggest that surprise recognition test accuracy
does not vary as a function of age among young adults aged
18–34 years.
Figure 4. Box plots depicting mean (centre dot), median, quartiles, and range of recognition rates for NA words for young and older adults. On
average, young adults recognised NA words at chance levels while older adults recognised NA words at rates significantly below chance (i.e. 50%).
Older adults recognised significantly fewer NA items (p < 0.05) compared to young adults. There was no difference in recognition rates for TA words
between age groups (not shown).
8 Brain and Neuroscience Advances
Interestingly, for older adults, a significant relationship was
observed for both word conditions. Age significantly predicted
TA accuracy scores (b = −0.02, 95% CI (−0.03, −0.006),
t(11) = 4.03, p < 0.01) and explained a significant proportion of
variance in TA accuracy (R2 = 0.49, F(1, 11) = 10.45, p < 0.01).
Age also significantly predicted NA accuracy scores (b = −0.01,
95% CI (−0.02, −0.002), t(11) = 3.76, p < 0.01) and explained a
significant proportion of variance in NA accuracy (R2 = 0.36, F(1,
11) = 7.60, p < 0.01). Collectively, these findings suggest that as
age increases by one unit, TA accuracy decreases by 0.02 units
and NA accuracy decreases 0.01 unit among older adults aged
60–90 years (see Figure 5).
Discussion
This experiment directly assessed the capacity of older adults to
selectively inhibit the processing of irrelevant information.
Previous researchers have evaluated inhibitory processes in
younger and older adults by measuring rates of distraction from
irrelevant items during an attention-demanding task (see Amer
and Hasher, 2014; Bloemendaal et al., 2016; Brink and McDowd,
1999; Eich et al., 2016; Farkas and Hoyer, 1980; Folk and
Lincourt, 1996; Geerligs et al., 2014; Hartley, 1993; Laguë-
Beauvais et al., 2013; Milham et al., 2002; Spieler et al., 1996;
Watson and Maylor, 2002). While informative, this approach
does not allow one to evaluate the extent to which specific types
of ignored information are processed and subsequently recalled
or recognised. The paradigm used in the present study allows for
such analyses to occur by testing recognition memory of the irrel-
evant information via a surprise test (Dewald et al., 2011).
Previous research has demonstrated that older adults may
have difficulty inhibiting the processing of irrelevant information
(Amer and Hasher, 2014; Campbell et al., 2010; Hasher and
Zacks, 1988; Kramer et al., 1999; Laguë-Beauvais et al., 2013;
Lustig et al., 2006; Madden et al., 1996; Mayr, 2001; Mertes
et al., 2017; Plude and Hoyer, 1986). Therefore, this study
evaluated if this age group would show a decline in the ability to
inhibit irrelevant information on the current task as well, leading
to overall higher recognition rates for older adults during the sur-
prise recognition test compared to the younger adults. However,
we found the opposite, with older adults actually recognising sig-
nificantly fewer words overall, compared to their younger coun-
terparts. This is perhaps not all that surprising, given that older
adults had slower RTs and lower hit rates during the primary task,
suggesting increased task difficulty for this age group, which is
discussed in more detail below.
Despite this unexpected result, what is important to note is the
differential pattern of recognition rates between older and younger
participants. Using this paradigm with young adults, Dewald et al.
(2011) revealed inhibited processing for TA words, as they were
recognised at rates significantly below chance and significantly
less often than NA words during the surprise recognition test (NA
words were recognised at chance levels). It was hypothesised that
task-irrelevant items that are presented with task-relevant targets
are more likely to be filtered during the encoding stage of process-
ing in order to allow for successful target identification and the
initiation of appropriate motor responses. This idea fits well with
compelling evidence from the field of perceptual learning, which
has demonstrated inhibited learning for irrelevant stimuli that was
simultaneously presented with attended targets, while learning
was evident for non-aligned irrelevant stimuli (see Tsushima
et al., 2008). In this framework, and as demonstrated here with the
young adult group, NA items were subjected to less stringent fil-
tering processes presumably because responses were not required
for non-target items. As such, the higher rate of inhibited process-
ing for TA items, compared to NA items, leads to lower recogni-
tion rates during the surprise recognition test. This finding was
replicated in the current study with our young adult sample and
suggests that, for this age group, inhibitory control can be
deployed in a selective manner by increasing the rate of filtering
dependent on the difficulty of the task or if additional action, such
as decision making and response selection, must be made.
Figure 5. (a) Proportion of hits for TA words plotted as a function of age among older adult sample. Age significantly predicted accuracy scores.
The linear trend line depicts slope (b = −0.02). As age increases by 1 year, proportion of hits declines by 0.02 (i.e. 2%). (b) Proportion of hits for
NA words plotted as a function of age among older adult sample. Again, age significantly predicted accuracy scores. Linear trend line depicts slope
(b = −0.01). As age increases by 1 year, proportion of hits declines by 0.01 (i.e. 1%). Age was not a significant predictor of accuracy scores among
the young adult sample (not shown).
Walker et al. 9
In contrast, the selective nature of inhibitory processes was
not present for the older adults in our experiment, as no differ-
ence in recognition rates between TA and NA words was observed
and both word types were recognised at rates significantly below
chance. Thus, it appears that older adults generally inhibited
irrelevant information in order to complete the task, rather than
just those specific items appearing with targets, as the young
adults seem to do. This finding suggests that older adults pro-
cessed all irrelevant words to a similar extent, regardless of tar-
get alignment. Furthermore, linear regression analyses suggest
that the observed inhibitory control may become more robustly
applied to task-irrelevant items as this group progress into
advanced old age.
The findings from this study are particularly relevant when
considering the lack of significant differences between age
groups when comparing overall performance on the surprise rec-
ognition test. Recall that both younger and older adults had statis-
tically indistinguishable d′, β, and discrimination accuracy scores
on average. These findings suggest that while both age groups
had difficulty identifying previously seen items (i.e. TA and NA;
as evidenced in overall low d′ scores) they were similarly able to
distinguish between previously seen items and foil items (evi-
denced in similar d′ and discrimination accuracy scores) and
there was no difference in response criteria between age groups
(as evidenced by the lack of differences in response bias). Taken
together, these data suggest that differences in NA word identifi-
cation between younger and older adults may not be attributed to
differences in response biases or discriminative capabilities
between old and new items, and instead can be interpreted as a
disturbance in the ability of older adults to selectively inhibit the
processing of irrelevant information.
Thus, inhibitory attentional mechanisms may operate differ-
ently between younger and older adults. It is possible that older
adults experience a reduced ability to selectively inhibit word
processing while attending to the pictures in the RSVP stream,
resulting in a broader inhibition of processing for all presented
irrelevant words during the primary task, regardless of tar-
get alignment. This may be due to the primary task being more
difficult for the older adults. Indeed, older adults exhibited over-
all lower accuracy and had significantly slower RTs when
detecting picture repetitions during the primary task, as pre-
dicted. Perceptual load theory (Lavie, 2005) suggests that dis-
tracting information has less influence on task performance
when task difficulty is increased. Therefore, larger amounts of
attentional resources may have been required in order for older
adults to identify, and respond to, targets during this portion of
the experimental session. Rather than selectively filter the most
intrusive irrelevant information (i.e. TA words), as young adults
appear to do, older adults seem to employ a broader inhibitory
control leading to more extensive filtering of all irrelevant infor-
mation. Future research may explore this concept in more detail
by varying task difficulty with a young adult population in order
to determine the extent that attentional load influences inhibi-
tory patterns.
Research investigating neural networks associated with pro-
active control in ageing adults sheds additional light on the cur-
rent findings. Proactive control is a form of inhibition, localised
within the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC), allowing for the rapid
and efficient response to upcoming stimuli through the mainte-
nance of task-relevant items guided by top-down information
such as task instructions or the identity of a previous target
(Braver, 2012). Manard et al. (2017) found that older adults
engaged in a task involving proactive inhibitory control showed
a decrease in sustained activity in the bilateral anterior cingulate
cortex (ACC), which is involved in conflict detection and moni-
toring (Botvinick et al., 2001). This decreased activity in the
ACC corresponded with increased activity of the middle frontal
gyrus (MFG), which is associated with active maintenance of
contextual information and general task goals (Braver, 2012).
The authors suggest that older adults may experience greater dif-
ficulty maintaining conflict-monitoring processes during situa-
tions involving proactive control (such as those incurring
high-cognitive demands). As a result, elderly participants may
need to keep general task goals and relevant contextual informa-
tion more highly activated in the MFG in order to react appropri-
ately to presented stimuli. Interestingly, these authors also
observed high rates of activity in ACC relating to low interfer-
ence conditions. Thus, higher levels of cortical recruitment are
involved in less demanding tasks suggesting compensatory acti-
vation, which could lead to ‘cerebral-overload’ in resource
demanding tasks (Manard et al., 2017).
These studies may offer a neurological explanation behind the
presently observed behavioural results. If older adults indeed find
the primary task to be more difficult, perhaps due to having less
experience with the technology, being distracted by the irrelevant
stimuli thereby making it more difficult to maintain task goals and
relevant contextual information, or because visually tracking the
rapidly presented attended stimuli requires more effortful deploy-
ment of selective attention, then it is possible that more extensive
proactive inhibitory control may be employed in a compensatory
manner. Among older adults, broader recruitment of sub-systems
within the fronto-parietal control network (FPCN), which includes
portions of the LPFC and posterior parietal cortex and is thought
to be involved in a variety of attention-related tasks by initiating
and modulating cognitive control abilities (Zanto and Gazzaley,
2013), may be utilised to maintain task goals and contextual infor-
mation while also engaging proactive control during the primary
task. On one hand, these neural processes may serve to increase
primary task performance. However, a high level of proactive
control among older adults may also lead to increased inhibitory
processes being applied to the task-irrelevant non-target items,
resulting in the observed lower recognition rates among NA words
during the surprise recognition test.
We also found that older adults were significantly slower to
respond in the surprise recognition test. While these results
should be interpreted with caution, as the recognition test was not
speeded, it may be further indication of inhibited processing for
words during the primary task. If older adults employed a broader
inhibitory control over unattended items during the primary task,
this lack of processing of the irrelevant items may be reflected by
higher rates of indecision when later presented in the recognition
task. Meaning that if older adults failed to process the unattended
words during the primary task, they may take longer to decide if
they were indeed present when seen again during the recognition
test. However, this may also simply be reflective of speed-accu-
racy trade-offs wherein older adults favour accuracy over speed,
which would also result in slower RTs, as has been observed in
many studies comparing older and younger adults (Rabbitt, 1965;
Salthouse, 1979; Smith and Brewer, 1995; Starns and Ratcliff,
2010). However, it should also be noted that such behavioural
shifts may have a neurological underpinning that is not directly
tied to strategy alone (Forstmann et al., 2011).
10 Brain and Neuroscience Advances
Taken together, the findings suggest that as age progresses,
inhibitory control may diminish, resulting in a decreased capacity
to execute selective inhibition over irrelevant information pre-
sented in attention-demanding tasks. Additional research is nec-
essary in order to fully understand how these mechanisms may
operate in old age and to what extent qualitative differences
might exist between younger and older adults in this regard.
Future studies should systematically increase task difficulty,
through faster presentation rates, in a young adult population. We
predict that increased presentation speed of the RSVP stream will
result in reduced performance on the primary task (as seen in
older adults here). If young adults continue to show preferential
inhibition for TA words under these circumstances, this may pro-
vide additional support for a decline in selective inhibitory con-
trol in an older adult population. In addition, neuroimaging could
shed light upon the differences in control networks and modu-
lated areas linked to both selective focus and inhibitory control.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Maegen E. Walker https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8081-3842
Note
1. This same body of literature has also demonstrated facili-
tated processing of ignored information using a variation
of this paradigm wherein distractors frequently appear
with targets (Dewald and Sinnett, 2012, 2013; Seitz and
Watanabe, 2003; Walker et al., 2014, 2017; Watanabe et al.,
2001). However, the current study is only concerned with
inhibitory processes.
References
Amer T and Hasher L (2014) Conceptual processing of distractors by
older but not younger adults. Psychological Science 25(12): 2252–
2258.
Amer T, Anderson JAE, Campbell KL, et al. (2016) Age differences in
the neural correlates of distraction regulation: A network interaction
approach. NeuroImage 139: 231–239.
Andrés P, Guerrini C, Phillips LH, et al. (2008) Differential effects of
aging on executive and automatic inhibition. Developmental Neuro-
psychology 33(2): 101–123.
Banich M, Milham M, Atchley R, et al. (2000a) FMRI studies of Stroop
tasks reveal unique roles of anterior and posterior brain system in atten-
tional selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12(6): 988–1000.
Bloemendaal M, Zandbelt B, Wegman J, et al. (2016) Contrasting neural
effects of aging on proactive and reactive response inhibition. Neu-
robiology of Aging 46: 96–106.
Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, et al. (2001) Conflict monitoring
and cognitive control. Psychological Review 108(3): 624–652.
Braver TS (2012) The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mecha-
nisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16(2): 106–113.
Brink JM and McDowd JM (1999) Aging and selective attention: An
issue of complexity or multiple mechanisms? The Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
54(1): 30–33.
Bugg JM, DeLosh EL, Davalos DB, et al. (2007) Age differences in
Stroop interference: Contributions of general slowing and task-
specific deficits. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 14(2):
155–167.
Campbell KL, Grady CL, Ng C, et al. (2012) Age differences in the fron-
toparietal cognitive control network: Implications for distractibility.
Neuropsychologia 50(9): 2212–2223.
Campbell KL, Hasher L and Thomas RC (2010) Hyper-binding: A
unique age effect. Psychological Science 21(3): 399–405.
Dewald AD and Sinnett S (2011a) An inhibited recognition performance
for explicitly presented target-aligned irrelevant stimuli in the audi-
tory modality. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of
the Cognitive Science Society 33(33): 1158–1163.
Dewald AD and Sinnett S (2011b) A multimodal investigation of recog-
nition performance for target-aligned but irrelevant stimuli. Proceed-
ings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society 33(33): 1164–1169.
Dewald AD and Sinnett S (2012) Enhanced performance for recognition
of irrelevant target-aligned auditory stimuli: Unimodal and cross-
modal considerations. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 34(34): 294–299.
Dewald AD and Sinnett S (2013) Speed facilitation in the absence of
enhanced recognition for target-aligned but irrelevant stimuli under
cross-modal presentations. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 35(35): 2183–2188.
Dewald AD, Sinnett S and Doumas LA (2011) Conditions of directed
attention inhibit recognition performance for explicitly presented
target-aligned irrelevant stimuli. Acta Psychologica 138(1): 60–67.
Dewald AD, Sinnett S and Doumas LA (2013) A window of percep-
tion when diverting attention? Enhancing recognition for explicitly
presented, unattended, and irrelevant stimuli by target alignment.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance 39(5): 1304–1312.
Eich TS, Gonçalves BM, Nee DE, et al. (2016) Inhibitory selection
mechanisms in clinically healthy older and younger adults. Journals
of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sci-
ences 73(4): 612–621.
Farkas MS and Hoyer WJ (1980) Processing consequences of percep-
tual grouping in selective attention. Journal of Gerontology 35(2):
207–216.
Folk CL and Lincourt AE (1996) The effects of age on guided conjunc-
tion search. Experimental Aging Research 22(1): 99–118.
Forster KI and Forster JC (2003) DMDX: A Windows display program
with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instru-
ments, and Computers 35(1): 116–124.
Forstmann BU, Tittgemeyer M, Wagenmakers EJ, et al. (2011) The
speed-accuracy tradeoff in the elderly brain: A structural model-
based approach. Journal of Neuroscience 31(47): 17242–17249.
Geerligs L, Saliasi E, Maurits NM, et al. (2014) Brain mechanisms under-
lying the effects of aging on different aspects of selective attention.
NeuroImage 91: 52–62.
Geng JJ (2014) Attentional mechanisms of distractor suppression. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science 23(2): 147–153.
Hartley AA (1993) Evidence for the selective preservation of spatial
selective attention in old age. Psychology and Aging 8(3): 371–379.
Hasher L and Zacks RT (1988) Working memory, comprehension, and
aging: A review and a new view. Psychology of Learning and Moti-
vation 22: 193–225.
Hasher L, Lustig C and Zacks R (2007) Inhibitory mechanisms and the
control of attention. In: Conway A, Jarrold C, and Kane M (Eds.)
Variation in working memory. pp. 227–249. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Kane MJ, Hasher L, Stoltzfus ER, et al. (1994) Inhibitory attentional
mechanisms and aging. Psychology and Aging 9(1): 103–112.
Walker et al. 11
Kirchner WK (1958) Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly
changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology 55(4):
352–358.
Kramer AF, Hahn S and Gopher D (1999) Task coordination and aging:
Explorations of executive control processes in the task switching
paradigm. Acta Psychologica 101(2): 339–378.
Laguë-Beauvais M, Brunet J, Gagnon L, et al. (2013) A fNIRS investiga-
tion of switching and inhibition during the modified Stroop task in
younger and older adults. NeuroImage 64: 485–495.
Lavie N (2005) Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(2): 75–82.
Lustig C, Hasher L and Tonev ST (2006) Distraction as a determinant
of processing speed. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13(4):
619–625.
McDowd JM (1997) Inhibition in attention and aging. The Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
52(6): 265–273.
Macmillan NA (2002) Signal detection theory. In: Pashler H and Wixted
J (eds) Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology (Vol. 4). pp.
43–90. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Macmillan NA and Creelman CD (1990) Response bias: Characteristics
of detection theory, threshold theory, and ‘nonparametric’ indexes.
Psychological Bulletin 107(3): 401–413.
Macmillan NA and Creelman CD (2004) Detection Theory: A User’s
Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Madden DJ, Pierce TW and Allen PA (1996) Adult age differences in the
use of distractor homogeneity during visual search. Psychology and
Aging 11(3): 454–474.
Manard M, François S, Phillips C, et al. (2017) The neural bases of pro-
active and reactive control processes in normal aging. Behavioural
Brain Research 320: 504–516.
Mayas J, Fuentes LJ and Ballesteros S (2012) Stroop interference and
negative priming (NP) suppression in normal aging. Archives of Ger-
ontology and Geriatrics 54(2): 333–338.
Mayr U (2001) Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role
of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychol-
ogy and Aging 16(1): 96–109.
Mertes C, Wascher E and Schneider D (2017) Compliance instead of
flexibility? On age-related differences in cognitive control during
visual search. Neurobiology of Aging 53: 169–180.
Milham MP, Erickson KI, Banich MT, et al. (2002) Attentional control
in the aging brain: Insights from an fMRI study of the Stroop task.
Brain and Cognition 49(3): 277–296.
Plude DJ and Hoyer WJ (1986) Age and the selectivity of visual informa-
tion processing. Psychology and Aging 1(1): 4–10.
Rabbitt P (1965) An age-decrement in the ability to ignore irrelevant
information. Journal of Gerontology 20(2): 233–238.
Rees G, Russell C, Frith CD, et al. (1999) Inattentional blindness ver-
sus inattentional amnesia for fixated but ignored words. Science
286(5449): 2504–2507.
Salthouse TA (1979) Adult age and the speed-accuracy trade-off. Ergo-
nomics 22(7): 811–821.
Salthouse TA (1996) The processing-speed theory of adult age differ-
ences in cognition. Psychological Review 103(3): 403–428.
Seitz AR and Watanabe T (2003) Psychophysics: Is subliminal learning
really passive? Nature 422(6927): 36.
Sinnett S, Snyder JJ and Kingstone A (2009) Role of the lateral prefrontal
cortex in visual object-based selective attention. Experimental Brain
Research 194(2): 191–196.
Smith GA and Brewer N (1995) Slowness and age: Speed-accuracy
mechanisms. Psychology and Aging 10(2): 238–247.
Snodgrass JG and Vanderwart M (1980) A standardized set of 260 pic-
tures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and
visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory 6(2): 174–215.
Spieler DH, Balota DA and Faust ME (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(2): 461–479.
Stanislaw H and Todorov N (1999) Calculation of signal detection theory
measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers
31(1): 137–149.
Starns JJ and Ratcliff R (2010) The effects of aging on the speed–accu-
racy compromise: Boundary optimality in the diffusion model. Psy-
chology and Aging 25(2): 377–390.
Störmer VS, Li SC, Heekeren HR, et al. (2013) Normal aging delays and
compromises early multifocal visual attention during object tracking.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 25(2): 188–202.
Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology 18(6): 643–662.
Tipper SP (1992) Selection for action: The role of inhibitory mecha-
nisms. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(3): 105–109.
Tsushima Y, Seitz AR and Watanabe T (2008) Task-irrelevant learning
occurs only when the irrelevant feature is weak. Current Biology
18(12): 516–517.
Walker M, Ciraolo M, Dewald AD, et al. (2017) Differential processing
for actively ignored pictures and words. PLoS ONE 12(1): e0170520.
Walker M, Dewald AD and Sinnett S (2014) The role of modality con-
gruence in the presentation and recognition of task-irrelevant stimuli
in dual task paradigms. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Cognitive
Science Society 36(36): 1736–1741.
Watanabe T, Náñez JE and Sasaki Y (2001) Perceptual learning without
perception. Nature 413(6858): 844–848.
Watson DG and Humphreys GW (1997) Visual marking: Prioritizing
selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old
objects. Psychological Review 104(1): 90–122.
Watson DG and Humphreys GW (1998) Visual marking of moving
objects: A role for top-down feature-based inhibition in selection.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance 24(3): 946–962.
Watson DG and Maylor EA (2002) Aging and visual marking: Selective
deficits for moving stimuli. Psychology and Aging 17(2): 321–339.
Wilson M (1988) MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dic-
tionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers 20(1): 6–10.
Zanto TP and Gazzaley A (2013) Fronto-parietal network: Flexible
hub of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(12):
602–603.
