Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 270–280 | Cite as

Auditory spatial attention capture, disengagement, and response selection in normal aging

  • Edward J. GolobEmail author
  • Jeffrey R. Mock
Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Attention control is a core element of cognitive aging, but the specific mechanisms that differ with age are unclear. Here we used a novel auditory spatial attention task to evaluate stimulus processing at the level of early attention capture, later response selection, and the lingering effects of attention capture across trials in young and older adults. We found that the shapes of spatial attention capture gradients were remarkably similar in young and older adults, but only the older group had lingering effects of attention capture on the next trial. Response selection for stimulus-response incompatibilities took longer in older subjects, but primarily when attending to the midline location. The results suggest that the likelihood and spatial tuning of attention capture is comparable among groups, but once attention is captured, older subjects take longer to disengage. Age differences in response selection were supported, but may not be a general feature of cognitive aging.

Keywords

Inhibition Simon effect Sustained attention 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01DC014736).

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the experiments. J.M. collected data. E.G. analyzed the data and wrote the initial manuscript. Both authors contributed to revising the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing financial interests

The authors have no competing financial interests.

Supplementary material

13414_2018_1611_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 35 kb)

References

  1. Allen, P. A., Kaufman, M., Smith, A. F., & Propper, R. E. (1998). A molar entropy model of age differences in spatial memory. Psychology and Aging, 13(3), 501–518.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.3.501 Google Scholar
  2. Amer, T., Campbell, K. L., & Hasher, L. (2016). Cognitive control as a double-edged sword. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 905–915.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, M., Reinvang, I., Wehling, E., Hugdahl, K., & Lundervold, A. J. (2008). A dichotic listening study of attention control in older adults. Scand J Psychol, 49(4), 299–304. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18724404 Google Scholar
  4. Andres, P., Parmentier, F. B., & Escera, C. (2006). The effect of age on involuntary capture of attention by irrelevant sounds: A test of the frontal hypothesis of aging. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2564–2568. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16797613 Google Scholar
  5. Anguera, J. A., & Gazzaley, A. (2015). Video games, cognitive exercises, and the enhancement of cognitive abilities. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 4, 160–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.06.002 Google Scholar
  6. Anstey, K. J., Wood, J., Lord, S., & Walker, J. G. (2005). Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(1), 45–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.008 Google Scholar
  7. Arnott, S. R., & Alain, C. (2011). The auditory dorsal pathway: Orienting vision. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(10), 2162–2173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.04.005 Google Scholar
  8. Arrabito, G. R., Ho, G., Aghaei, B., Burns, C., & Hou, M. (2015). Sustained attention in auditory and visual monitoring tasks: Evaluation of the administration of a rest break or exogenous vibrotactile signals. Human Factors, 57(8), 1403–1416.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815598433 Google Scholar
  9. Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V, & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010 Google Scholar
  10. Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 Google Scholar
  11. Bahcall, D. O., & Kowler, E. (1999). Attentional interference at small spatial separations. Vision Research, 39(February 1998), 71–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00090-X Google Scholar
  12. Basak, C., & Verhaeghen, P. (2011). Aging and switching the focus of attention in working memory : Age differences in item availability but not in item accessibility. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 66, 519–526.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr028.Google Scholar
  13. Birren, J. E., & Fisher, L. M. (1995). Aging and speed of behavior: Possible consequences for psychological functioning. Annu Rev Psychol, 46, 329–353. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&dopt=r&uid=0007872732 Google Scholar
  14. Blauert, J. (1997). Spatial hearing: The psychophysics of human sound localization. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010 Google Scholar
  16. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Buhlmann, I., Umilta, C., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding and visuomotor transformation in the Simon task: The role of action goals. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 33(6), 1269–1282. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18085942 Google Scholar
  18. Cashdollar, N., Fukuda, K., Bocklage, A., Aurtenetxe, S., Vogel, E. K., & Gazzaley, A. (2013). Prolonged disengagement from attentional capture in normal aging. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 77–86.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029899 Google Scholar
  19. Castel, A. D., Balota, D. A., Hutchison, K. A., Logan, J. M., & Yap, M. J. (2007). Spatial attention and response control in healthy younger and older adults and individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence for disproportionate selection impairments in the Simon task. Neuropsychology, 21(2), 170–182. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17402817 Google Scholar
  20. Connelly, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Age and reading: The impact of distraction. Psychology and Aging, 6(4), 533–541.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.6.4.533 Google Scholar
  21. Corbetta, M., Akbudak, E., Conturo, T. E., Snyder, A. Z., Ollinger, J. M., Drury, H. A., … Shulman, G. L. (1998). A common network of functional areas for attention and eye movements. Neuron, 21(4), 761–773.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80593-0
  22. Darowski, E. S., Helder, E., Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2008). Age-related differences in cognition: The role of distraction control. Neuropsychology, 22(5), 638–644. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=18763883 Google Scholar
  23. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Google Scholar
  24. Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychol Bull, 125(6), 777–799.Google Scholar
  25. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. J Exp Psychol, 46(3), 199–210. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=13084867 Google Scholar
  26. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen, 133(1), 101–135. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14979754 Google Scholar
  27. Golob, E. J., Lewald, J., Jungilligens, J., & Getzmann, S. (2016). Interaction of number magnitude and auditory localization. Perception, 45(1–2), 165–179.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615599906 Google Scholar
  28. Golob, E. J., Venable, K. B., Scheuerman, J., & Anderson, M. T. (2017). Computational modeling of auditory spatial attention. In Ann Conf Cognitive Sci Soc.Google Scholar
  29. Golob, E. J., Winston, J., & Mock, J. R. (2017). Impact of spatial and verbal short-term memory load on auditory spatial attention gradients. Frontiers in Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  30. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Holtzer, R., Friedman, R., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M., Xue, X., & Verghese, J. (2007). The relationship between specific cognitive functions and falls in aging. Neuropsychology, 21(5), 540–548. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17784802 Google Scholar
  32. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention - Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55(4), 270–279.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687 Google Scholar
  33. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011 Google Scholar
  34. Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci, 24(5), 849–937. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12239891 Google Scholar
  35. Ivanoff, J. (2003). On spatial response code activation in a Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 112(2), 157–179.Google Scholar
  36. Jerison, H. J. (1973). Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kimura, D. (1967). Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex, 3, 163–178.Google Scholar
  38. Klein, R. M., Dove, M. E., Ivanoff, J., & Eskes, G. A. (2006). Parametric exploration of the Simon effect across visual space. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 112–126.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cjep2006012 Google Scholar
  39. Koga, Y., & Morant, G. M. (1923). On the degree of association between reaction times in the case of different senses. Biometrika, 15, 346–372.Google Scholar
  40. Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Theeuwes, J. (1999). Attentional capture and aging: implications for visual search performance and oculomotor control. Psychol Aging, 14(1), 135–154. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=10224638 Google Scholar
  41. Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: Beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. Psychol Aging, 9(4), 491–512. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&dopt=r&uid=7893421 Google Scholar
  42. Kramer, A. F., & Madden, D. J. (2008). Attention. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), (3rd ed., pp. 189–249). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lawo, V., & Koch, I. (2014). Dissociable effects of auditory attention switching and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 78(3), 379–386.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0545-9 Google Scholar
  44. Lawrence, R. K., Edwards, M., & Goodhew, S. C. (2018). Changes in the spatial spread of attention with ageing. Acta Psychologica, 188(June), 188–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2018.06.009 Google Scholar
  45. Lewald, J. (1997). Eye-position effects in directional hearing. Behavioural Brain Research, 87(1), 35–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(96)02254-1 Google Scholar
  46. Lewald, J., & Getzmann, S. (2006). Horizontal and vertical effects of eye-position on sound localization. Hearing Research, 213(1–2), 99–106. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16466875 Google Scholar
  47. Maylor, E. A., & Lavie, N. (1998). The influence of perceptual load on age differences in selective attention. Psychol Aging, 13(4), 563–573. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=9883457 Google Scholar
  48. Mock, J. R., Seay, M. J., Charney, D. R., Holmes, J. L., & Golob, E. J. (2015). Rapid cortical dynamics associated with auditory spatial attention gradients. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9(MAY).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00179
  49. Mondor, T. A., & Zatorre, R. J. (1995). Shifting and focusing auditory spatial attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 21(2), 387–409. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=7714479 Google Scholar
  50. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7 Google Scholar
  51. Oberem, J., Koch, I., & Fels, J. (2017). Intentional switching in auditory selective attention: Exploring age-related effects in a spatial setup requiring speech perception. Acta Psychologica, 177(October 2016), 36–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.008 Google Scholar
  52. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=5146491 Google Scholar
  53. Pashler. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  55. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  56. Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychol Rev, 83(2), 157–171. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&dopt=r&uid=0000769017 Google Scholar
  57. Pratt, J., & Bellomo, C. N. (1999). Attention capture in younger and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychol, Cog, 6(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
  58. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416–442.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416 Google Scholar
  59. Proctor, R. W., Pick, D. F., Vu, K.-P. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2005). The enhanced Simon effect for older adults is reduced when the irrelevant location information is conveyed by an accessory stimulus. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.014 Google Scholar
  60. Rey-Mermet, A., & Gade, M. (2017). Inhibition in aging: What is preserved? What declines? A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1384-7
  61. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25(1A), 31–40. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3574648 Google Scholar
  62. Roeber, U., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2003). Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(2), 347–357. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880905 Google Scholar
  63. Rorden, C., & Driver, J. (2001). Spatial deployment of attention within and across hemifields in an auditory task. Exp Brain Res, 137(3–4), 487–496. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11355393 Google Scholar
  64. Rovamo, J., & Virsu, V. (1979). An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor. Experimental Brain Research, 37(3), 495–510.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00236819 Google Scholar
  65. Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world: Toward a theory of soundscape design (1st ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  66. Scharf, B. (1998). Auditory attention: The psychoacoustical approach. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 75–117). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  67. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. J Appl Psychol, 53, 433–435.Google Scholar
  68. Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends Cogn Sci, 4(4), 147–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01455-8 Google Scholar
  69. Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Higher nervous functions; the orienting reflex. Annu Rev Physiol, 25, 545–580. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=13977960 Google Scholar
  70. Tun, P. a., O’Kane, G., & Wingfield, A. (2002). Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychology and Aging, 17(3), 453–467.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.17.3.453 Google Scholar
  71. Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014). A review of current evidence for the causal impact of attentional bias on fear and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 682–721.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034834 Google Scholar
  72. van der Lubbe, R. H., & Verleger, R. (2002). Aging and the Simon task. Psychophysiology, 39(1), 100–110. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12206290 Google Scholar
  73. Verhaeghen, P., & Cerella, J. (2002). Aging, executive control, and attention: A review of meta-analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 26(7), 849–857. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12470697 Google Scholar
  74. Vu, K. P., Proctor, R. W., & Urcuioli, P. (2003). Transfer effects of incompatible location-relevant mappings on a subsequent visual or auditory simon task. Mem Cognit, 31(7), 1146–1152. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14704029 Google Scholar
  75. Vu, K. P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus-response mappings and tasks. Acta Psychologica, 129(1), 49–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.006 Google Scholar
  76. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. J Exp Psychol, 88, 354–360.Google Scholar
  77. Warm, J. S., & Parasuraman, R. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. 50(3), 433–441.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X312152.
  78. Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 27(3), 731–751. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11424658 Google Scholar
  79. Yurgil, K. A., & Golob, E. J. (2013). Cortical potentials in an auditory oddball task reflect individual differences in working memory capacity. Psychophysiology, 50, 1263–1274.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Texas, San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations