The Effects of Aging and Time of Day on Inhibitory Control: An Event-Related Potential Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time of day (TOD) influences on executive functions have been widely reported, with greater efficiency demonstrated at optimal relative to non-optimal TOD according to one's chronotype (i.e., synchrony effect). Older adults (OAs) show declines in inhibitory control and are more sensitive to the effects of circadian variation on executive functioning. To date, no studies have investigated the effects of TOD and aging on executive functioning using electrophysiological measures. The present study investigated the effects of aging and TOD on the neural correlates of inhibitory processing (N2 and P3) using event-related potentials (ERPs). Go-NoGo and Flanker tasks were administered to 52 OAs of morning chronotype and 51 younger adults (YAs) of afternoon-to-evening chronotype who were randomly assigned to morning or afternoon test sessions, with the optimal TOD for OAs in the morning and for YAs in the afternoon/evening. While behavioral results demonstrated no TOD effects, ERPs indicated synchrony effects. Both YAs and OAs showed greater modulation of Go-NoGo N2 and greater P3 amplitude during the non-optimal than optimal TOD, consistent with the synchrony effect. For the Flanker task, age differences in P3 amplitude were only apparent during the non-optimal TOD. These results suggest that processes associated with inhibitory control are differentially affected by TOD and aging, with age-related reductions in inhibitory efficiency during off-peak test times on measures of interference control. These findings highlight the sensitivity of ERPs to detect TOD effects in the absence of behavioral differences, confirm more pronounced TOD effects in OAs relative to YAs on ERP measures of interference control, and reinforce the need to assess and control for circadian typology in research studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".