No abstract

Impaired dual-task performance in younger and older adults can be improved with practice. Optimal conditions even allow for a (near) elimination of this impairment in younger adults. However, it is unknown whether such (near) elimination is the limit of performance improvements in older adults. The present study tests this limit in older adults under conditions of (a) a high amount of dual-task training and (b) training with simplified component tasks in dual-task situations. The data showed that a high amount of dual-task training in older adults provided no evidence for an improvement of dual-task performance to the optimal dual-task performance level achieved by younger adults. However, training with simplified component tasks in dual-task situations exclusively in older adults provided a similar level of optimal dual-task performance in both age groups. Therefore through applying a testing the limits approach, we demonstrated that older adults improved dual-task performance to the same level as younger adults at the end of training under very specific conditions.

The Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) is widely used in scientific research as well as in clinical practice. But there exists little research on the structure of the AVLT. We investigated the structure of a German version of the AVLT and VLMT, in 232 patients of a psychiatric clinic and in 872 patients of an epileptologic clinic. First we stated a theoretical LISREL model relating the observed variables of the VLMT to short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) as latent variables. Then we estimated the postulated LISREL model in the two samples. The proposed model showed excellent fit in both samples, and there were no significant deviations between the estimated and the observed covariance matrices. Thus, STM and LTM suffice to explain the structure of the VLMT, and the proposed structural equations model can be used to estimate STM and LTM capacity from VLMT data.

Distracting sensory events can capture attention, interfering with the performance of the task at hand. We asked: is our attention captured by such events if we cause them ourselves? To examine this, we employed a visual search task with an additional salient singleton distractor, where the distractor was predictable either by the participant’s own (motor) action or by an endogenous cue; accordingly, the task was designed to isolate the influence of motor and non-motor predictive processes. We found both types of prediction, cue- and action-based, to attenuate the interference of the distractor—which is at odds with the “attentional white bear” hypothesis, which states that prediction of distracting stimuli mandatorily directs attention towards them. Further, there was no difference between the two types of prediction. We suggest this pattern of results may be better explained by theories postulating general predictive mechanisms, such as the framework of predictive processing, as compared to accounts proposing a special role of action–effect prediction, such as theories based on optimal motor control. However, rather than permitting a definitive decision between competing theories, our study highlights a number of open questions, to be answered by these theories, with regard to how exogenous attention is influenced by predictions deriving from the environment versus our own actions.