Age-related slowing of response selection and production in a visual choice reaction time task

David L Woods, John M Wyma, E William Yund, Timothy J Herron, Bruce Reed, David L Woods, John M Wyma, E William Yund, Timothy J Herron, Bruce Reed

Abstract

Aging is associated with delayed processing in choice reaction time (CRT) tasks, but the processing stages most impacted by aging have not been clearly identified. Here, we analyzed CRT latencies in a computerized serial visual feature-conjunction task. Participants responded to a target letter (probability 40%) by pressing one mouse button, and responded to distractor letters differing either in color, shape, or both features from the target (probabilities 20% each) by pressing the other mouse button. Stimuli were presented randomly to the left and right visual fields and stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) were adaptively reduced following correct responses using a staircase procedure. In Experiment 1, we tested 1466 participants who ranged in age from 18 to 65 years. CRT latencies increased significantly with age (r = 0.47, 2.80 ms/year). Central processing time (CPT), isolated by subtracting simple reaction times (SRT) (obtained in a companion experiment performed on the same day) from CRT latencies, accounted for more than 80% of age-related CRT slowing, with most of the remaining increase in latency due to slowed motor responses. Participants were faster and more accurate when the stimulus location was spatially compatible with the mouse button used for responding, and this effect increased slightly with age. Participants took longer to respond to distractors with target color or shape than to distractors with no target features. However, the additional time needed to discriminate the more target-like distractors did not increase with age. In Experiment 2, we replicated the findings of Experiment 1 in a second population of 178 participants (ages 18-82 years). CRT latencies did not differ significantly in the two experiments, and similar effects of age, distractor similarity, and stimulus-response spatial compatibility were found. The results suggest that the age-related slowing in visual CRT latencies is largely due to delays in response selection and production.

Keywords: aging; executive function; handedness; hemisphere; motor; processing speed; replication; timing.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The adaptive visual feature conjunction task. Subjects performed a visual feature conjunction task with colored letters (blue P, blue F, orange P, or orange F) subtending 0.5° of visual angle randomly presented to the left or right hemifield, 1.6° from the fixation cross. Stimulus durations were 200 ms. Right-handed subjects pressed the left mouse button for targets (blue P’s, probability 40%) and pressed the right mouse button for non-targets, i.e., letters which resembled the target in color, shape, or neither feature (probability 20% each). Stimuli could occur ipsilateral (trials 1 and 2) or contralateral (trial 3) to the mouse button used for responding. Stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) were initially set at 2500 ms and were either reduced by 3% following each pair of successive hits or increased by 3% following each miss.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean choice reaction times (CRTs). Mean CRTs averaged over stimulus types for subjects of different ages from Experiments 1 (blue diamonds) and 2 (open red squares). The linear fit for Experiment 1 data is shown.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Minimum stimulus onset asynchronies (mSOAs). Shown as a function of age for subjects in Experiments 1 and 2.
Figure 4
Figure 4
CRTs to stimuli of different types in Experiment 1. None = distractor with no target features. Shape = distractor with target shape. Color = distractor with target color. Compatible = stimulus delivered to the visual field ipsilateral to response button. Incompatible = stimulus delivered to the visual field contralateral to the response button. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Mean central processing time (CPT). CPTs were derived by subtracting RT latencies in a simple reaction time (SRT) task from CRT latencies averaged over different stimuli for subjects of different ages in Experiments 1 and 2. Linear fit is shown for Experiment 1 data.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Age-related changes in different processing stages for Experiment 1. Changes in ms are shown relative to the duration of each processing stage in the youngest subjects (18–24 years). Stimulus detection time (SDT) and movement-initiation time (MIT) had been measured in previous tests performed on the same day. MCPT = Minimal CPT, the difference between CRTs to distractors with no target features and simple reaction times. CFPT = continued feature processing time, the difference between CRTs to distractors with target color or shape and distractors with no target features. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Z-scores of age-regressed (AR) CRTs and log-mSOAs. Z-scores were calculated based on means and age-regression slopes from Experiment 1 data for individual subjects in Experiments 1 and 2. The abnormal performance thresholds (red lines, p < 0.05) were derived from Experiment 1 data.

References

    1. Allen B. J., Gfeller J. D. (2011). The immediate post-concussion assessment and cognitive testing battery and traditional neuropsychological measures: a construct and concurrent validity study. Brain Inj. 25, 179–191. 10.3109/02699052.2010.541897
    1. Anstey K. J., Dear K., Christensen H., Jorm A. F. (2005). Biomarkers, health, lifestyle and demographic variables as correlates of reaction time performance in early, middle and late adulthood. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 58, 5–21. 10.1080/02724980443000232
    1. Anstey K. J., Luszcz M. A., Sanchez L. (2001). A reevaluation of the common factor theory of shared variance among age, sensory function and cognitive function in older adults. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 56, P3–P11. 10.1093/geronb/56.1.p3
    1. Ballesteros S., Mayas J., Reales J. M. (2013). Cognitive function in normal aging and in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Psicothema 25, 18–24. 10.7334/psicothema2012.181
    1. Bugg J. M., Zook N. A., DeLosh E. L., Davalos D. B., Davis H. P. (2006). Age differences in fluid intelligence: contributions of general slowing and frontal decline. Brain Cogn. 62, 9–16. 10.1016/j.bandc.2006.02.006
    1. Deary I. J., Der G. (2005). Reaction time, age and cognitive ability: longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 12, 187–215 10.1080/13825580590969235
    1. Deary I. J., Der G., Ford G. (2001). Reaction times and intelligence differences: a population-based cohort study. Intelligence 29, 389–399 10.1016/s0160-2896(01)00062-9
    1. Deary I. J., Johnson W., Starr J. M. (2010). Are processing speed tasks biomarkers of cognitive aging?. Psychol. Aging 25, 219–228. 10.1037/a0017750
    1. Deary I. J., Liewald D., Nissan J. (2011). A free, easy-to-use, computer-based simple and four-choice reaction time programme: the Deary-Liewald reaction time task. Behav. Res. Methods 43, 258–268. 10.3758/s13428-010-0024-1
    1. Der G., Deary I. J. (2006). Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom health and lifestyle survey. Psychol. Aging 21, 62–73. 10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.62
    1. Dordonova Y. A., Dordonov Y. S. (2013). Is there any evidence of historical slowing of reaction time? No, unless we compare apples and oranges. Intelligence 41, 674–687 10.1016/j.intell.2013.09.001
    1. Dykiert D., Der G., Starr J. M., Deary I. J. (2012a). Age differences in intra-individual variability in simple and choice reaction time: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7:e45759. 10.1371/journal.pone.0045759
    1. Dykiert D., Der G., Starr J. M., Deary I. J. (2012b). Sex differences in reaction time mean and intraindividual variability across the life span. Dev. Psychol. 48, 1262–1276. 10.1037/a0027550
    1. Era P., Sainio P., Koskinen S., Ohlgren J., Härkänen T., Aromaa A. (2011). Psychomotor speed in a random sample of 7,979 subjects aged 30 years and over. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 23, 135–144. 10.1007/bf03351077
    1. Falkenstein M., Yordanova J., Kolev V. (2006). Effects of aging on slowing of motor-response generation. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 59, 22–29. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.08.004
    1. Feeney J., Finucane C., Savva G. M., Cronin H., Beatty S., Nolan J. M., et al. . (2013). Low macular pigment optical density is associated with lower cognitive performance in a large, population-based sample of older adults. Neurobiol. Aging 34, 2449–2456. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.05.007
    1. Glass J. M. (2007). Visual function and cognitive aging: differential role of contrast sensitivity in verbal versus spatial tasks. Psychol. Aging 22, 233–238. 10.1037/0882-7974.22.2.233
    1. Godefroy O., Roussel M., Despretz P., Quaglino V., Boucart M. (2010). Age-related slowing: perceptuomotor, decision, or attention decline?. Exp. Aging Res. 36, 169–189. 10.1080/03610731003613615
    1. Gualtieri C. T., Johnson L. G. (2008). A computerized test battery sensitive to mild and severe brain injury. Medscape J. Med. 10, 90–111.
    1. Habekost T., Vogel A., Rostrup E., Bundesen C., Kyllingsbaek S., Garde E., et al. . (2013). Visual processing speed in old age. Scand. J. Psychol. 54, 89–94. 10.1111/sjop.12008
    1. Hommel B., Li K. Z., Li S. C. (2004). Visual search across the life span. Dev. Psychol. 40, 545–558. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.545
    1. Houx P. J., Jolles J. (1993). Age-related decline of psychomotor speed: effects of age, brain health, sex and education. Percept. Mot. Skills 76, 195–211. 10.2466/pms.1993.76.1.195
    1. Hubel K. A., Reed B., Yund E. W., Herron T. J., Woods D. L. (2013a). Computerized measures of finger tapping: effects of hand dominance, age and sex. Percept. Mot. Skills 116, 929–952. 10.2466/25.29.pms.116.3.929-952
    1. Hubel K. A., Yund E. W., Herron T. J., Woods D. L. (2013b). Computerized measures of finger tapping: reliability, malingering and traumatic brain injury. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 35, 745–758. 10.1080/13803395.2013.824070
    1. Iverson G. L., Lovell M. R., Collins M. W. (2005). Validity of ImPACT for measuring processing speed following sports-related concussion. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 27, 683–689. 10.1081/13803390490918435
    1. Jeeves M. A., Moes P. (1996). Interhemispheric transfer time differences related to aging and gender. Neuropsychologia 34, 627–636. 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00157-3
    1. Kane R. L., Roebuck-Spencer T., Short P., Kabat M., Wilken J. (2007). Identifying and monitoring cognitive deficits in clinical populations using Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) tests. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 22(Suppl. 1), S115–S126. 10.1016/j.acn.2006.10.006
    1. Klein R. M., Ivanoff J. (2011). The components of visual attention and the ubiquitous Simon effect. Acta Psychol. (Amst) 136, 225–234. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.003
    1. Lapshin H., Lanctôt K. L., O’Connor P., Feinstein A. (2013). Assessing the validity of a computer-generated cognitive screening instrument for patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 19, 1905–1912. 10.1177/1352458513488841
    1. Lee C. R., Jeong K. S., Kim Y., Yoo C. I., Lee J. H., Choi Y. H. (2005). Neurobehavioral changes of shipyard painters exposed to mixed organic solvents. Ind. Health 43, 320–326. 10.2486/indhealth.43.320
    1. Levin O., Cuypers K., Netz Y., Thijs H., Nuttin B., Helsen W. F., et al. . (2011). Age-related differences in human corticospinal excitability during simple reaction time. Neurosci. Lett. 487, 53–57. 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.09.072
    1. Lewis R. D., Brown J. M. (1994). Influence of muscle activation dynamics on reaction time in the elderly. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 69, 344–349. 10.1007/bf00392041
    1. Li Y., McColgin C., Van Oteghen S. L. (1998). Comparisons of psychomotor performance between the upper and lower extremities in three age groups. Percept. Mot. Skills 87(3 Pt. 1), 947–952. 10.2466/pms.1998.87.3.947
    1. Linnet E., Roser M. E. (2012). Age-related differences in interhemispheric visuomotor integration measured by the redundant target effect. Psychol. Aging 27, 399–409. 10.1037/a0024905
    1. Luciano M., Gow A. J., Harris S. E., Hayward C., Allerhand M., Starr J. M., et al. . (2009). Cognitive ability at age 11 and 70 years, information processing speed and APOE variation: the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 study. Psychol. Aging 24, 129–138. 10.1037/a0014780
    1. Madden D. J., Allen P. A. (1995). Aging and the speed/accuracy relation in visual search: evidence for an accumulator model. Optom. Vis. Sci. 72, 210–216. 10.1097/00006324-199503000-00010
    1. Maerlender A., Flashman L., Kessler A., Kumbhani S., Greenwald R., Tosteson T., et al. . (2010). Examination of the construct validity of ImPACT™ computerized test, traditional and experimental neuropsychological measures. Clin. Neuropsychol. 24, 1309–1325. 10.1080/13854046.2010.516072
    1. Müller-Oehring E. M., Schulte T., Rohlfing T., Pfefferbaum A., Sullivan E. V. (2013). Visual search and the aging brain: discerning the effects of age-related brain volume shrinkage on alertness, feature binding and attentional control. Neuropsychology 27, 48–59. 10.1037/a0030921
    1. Neath I., Earle A., Hallett D., Surprenant A. M. (2011). Response time accuracy in Apple Macintosh computers. Behav. Res. Methods 43, 353–362. 10.3758/s13428-011-0069-9
    1. Plant R. R., Quinlan P. T. (2013). Could millisecond timing errors in commonly used equipment be a cause of replication failure in some neuroscience studies? Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 13, 598–614. 10.3758/s13415-013-0166-6
    1. Plant R. R., Turner G. (2009). Millisecond precision psychological research in a world of commodity computers: new hardware, new problems? Behav. Res. Methods 41, 598–614. 10.3758/BRM.41.3.598
    1. Plude D. J., Doussard-Roosevelt J. A. (1989). Aging, selective attention and feature integration. Psychol. Aging 4, 98–105. 10.1037//0882-7974.4.1.98
    1. Rabbitt P., Scott M., Lunn M., Thacker N., Lowe C., Pendleton N., et al. . (2007). White matter lesions account for all age-related declines in speed but not in intelligence. Neuropsychology 21, 363–370. 10.1037/0894-4105.21.3.363
    1. Reed B. R., Crane J., Garrett N., Woods D. L., Bates M. N. (2014). Chronic ambient hydrogen sulfide exposure and cognitive function. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 42, 68–76. 10.1016/j.ntt.2014.02.002
    1. Reimers S., Maylor E. A. (2006). Gender effects on reaction time variability and trial-to-trial performance: reply to Deary and Der (2005). Neuropsychol. Dev. Cogn. B Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 13, 479–489. 10.1080/138255890969375
    1. Robbins T. W., James M., Owen A. M., Sahakian B. J., McInnes L., Rabbitt P. (1994). Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dementia 5, 266–281. 10.1159/000106735
    1. Roggeveen A. B., Prime D. J., Ward L. M. (2007). Lateralized readiness potentials reveal motor slowing in the aging brain. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 62, P78–P84. 10.1093/geronb/62.2.p78
    1. Salthouse T. A. (2000). Aging and measures of processing speed. Biol. Psychol. 54, 35–54. 10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00052-1
    1. Schialfa C. T., Esau S. P., Joffe K. M. (1998). Age, target-distractor similarity, and visual search. Exp. Aging Res. 24, 337–358. 10.1080/036107398244184
    1. Schroeder M. M., Lipton R. B., Ritter W., Giesser B. S. (1995). Event-related potential correlates of early processing in normal aging. Int. J. Neurosci. 80, 371–382. 10.3109/00207459508986110
    1. Tobimatsu S., Sun S. J., Fukui R., Kato M. (1998). Effects of sex, height and age on motor evoked potentials with magnetic stimulation. J. Neurol. 245, 256–261. 10.1007/s004150050215
    1. van de Laar M. C., van den Wildenberg W. P., van Boxtel G. J., Huizenga H. M., van der Molen M. W. (2012). Lifespan changes in motor activation and inhibition during choice reactions: a Laplacian ERP study. Biol. Psychol. 89, 323–334. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.11.005
    1. van der Lubbe R. H., Verleger R. (2002). Aging and the Simon task. Psychophysiology 39, 100–110. 10.1111/1469-8986.3910100
    1. Vincent A. S., Roebuck-Spencer T., Gilliland K., Schlegel R. (2012). Automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (v4) traumatic brain injury battery: military normative data. Mil. Med. 177, 256–269. 10.7205/MILMED-D-11-00289
    1. Woods D. L., Kishiyama M. M., Yund E. W., Herron T. J., Edwards B., Poliva O., et al. . (2011a). Improving digit span assessment of short-term verbal memory. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 33, 101–111. 10.1080/13803395.2010.493149
    1. Woods D. L., Kishiyama M. M., Yund E. W., Herron T. J., Hink R. F., Reed B. (2011b). Computerized analysis of error patterns in digit span recall. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 33, 721–734. 10.1080/13803395.2010.550602
    1. Woods D. L., Wyma J., Yund E. W., Herron T. J., Reed B. (2015). Factors influencing the latency of simple reaction time. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9:131 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00131
    1. Yamaguchi S., Tsuchiya H., Kobayashi S. (1995). Electrophysiologic correlates of age effects on visuospatial attention shift. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 3, 41–49. 10.1016/0926-6410(95)00017-8
    1. Yordanova J., Kolev V., Hohnsbein J., Falkenstein M. (2004). Sensorimotor slowing with ageing is mediated by a functional dysregulation of motor-generation processes: evidence from high-resolution event-related potentials. Brain 127(Pt. 2), 351–362. 10.1093/brain/awh042

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する