The preservation of response inhibition aftereffects in a location-based spatial negative priming task: younger versus older adults

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.

The Zebrafish World of Colors and Shapes: Preference and Discrimination

“…3d), but hamper it. According to Wilkie, 69 Fitzgeorge et al, 70 Buckolz et al, 71 the inclusion of an extra cue of different category may have acted as a distracter, and thus, fish was forced to perform conjunctive search, 72 in which accuracy is lower due to the need of increased time to compare items of each category. Evidence suggests that animals exposed to a to-beremembered stimulus hold it in memory and respond faster during a probe when no other stimuli are present.…”

When awareness gets in the way: Reactivation aversion effects resolve the generality/specificity paradox in sensorimotor interference tasks.

“…Importantly, such age equivalence occurs not only for simple sensorimotor interference effects like Stroop or flanker effects. Rather, it also occurs for so-called inhibitory aftereffects, that is, for effects that originate from the reactivation of an automatically activated but then discarded response such as antisaccade delays, NP, IOR, and local switch and N-2 repetition costs (for reviews and meta-analyses, see, e.g., Gamboz, Russo, & Fox, 2002; Rey-Mermet & Gade, 2018; Rey-Mermet, Gade, & Oberauer, 2018; Verhaeghen, 2011, 2014), and spatial NP (Buckolz, Lok, Kajaste, Edgar, & Khan, 2015). Moreover, in tasks in which older adults do appear disproportionately disadvantaged, the age-related deficit takes the form of delayed or reduced aftereffects, such as with IOR onset (Erel & Levy, 2016) and the NCE with subliminal primes (Maylor, Birak, & Schlaghecken, 2011; Schlaghecken, Birak, & Maylor, 2011, 2012; Schlaghecken & Maylor, 2005).…”

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

“…In the critical trials, prime distractor and probe target are presented at different locations and participants can decide whether to perform the former prime distractor response or a new response to the probe target location. The finding that former distractor-assigned responses are less likely to be executed in these trials has been taken as further evidence for distractor-related response inhibition (e.g., Buckolz et al, 2015;Fitzgeorge et al, 2011). 2 Buckolz, Fitzgeorge, and Knowles (2012) argued that a locationbased ''orienting inhibition'' mechanism only operates in visuospatial negative priming when parafoveal stimulus locations are employed in the task at hand.…”

“…There is compelling evidence for a response inhibition account of visuospatial negative priming (e.g., Buckolz, Edgar, Kajaste, Lok, & Khan, 2012;Buckolz et al, 2004;Buckolz, Lok, Kajaste, Edgar, & Khan, 2015;Buckolz, Stoddart, Edgar, & Khan, 2014;Fitzgeorge, Buckolz, & Khan, 2011;Guy & Buckolz, 2007;Guy, Buckolz, & Khan, 2006). In most of these studies, multiple stimulus locations were assigned to a common response to disentangle the effect of location and response repetition between prime distractor and probe target on performance.…”