Age Differences in Target Detection and Interference Resolution in Working Memory: An Event-related Potential Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing consensus that a decline in attentional control is a core aspect of cognitive aging. We used event-related potentials to examine the time course of attentional control in older and younger adults as they attempted to resolve familiarity-based and response-based interference during a working memory task. Accuracy was high for both groups but their neural response to targets and to distracters was markedly different. Young adults' early target selection was evident by 300 msec in a differentiated P3a and they responded to interference by generating a medial frontal negativity (MFN) to distracters by 450 msec that was largest when the need for interference resolution was greatest. Dipole source analyses revealed a temporal coactivation of the inferior frontal and anterior cingulate cortex in younger adults, suggesting that these regions may interact during interference resolution. Older adults did not show the early target-selective P3a effect and failed to subsequently produce the MFN in response to distracting stimuli. In fact, older adults showed a large frontal positivity in place of the MFN but, rather than serve a compensatory role, this frontal activation was associated with poorer behavioral performance. These data suggest that aging interferes with a dynamic interplay of early target selection followed by later suppression of distracter-related neural activity--a process central to the efficient control of attention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".