ArticlePsychology and aging2018
The mapping between transformed reaction time costs and models of processing in aging and cognition.
Article in Psychology and aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of Combined Physical and Cognitive Interventions on Executive Functions in OLDER Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Dissociating task, semantic, and response conflict in cognitive aging: evidence from a low-cognitive control Stroop paradigm.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Limited Evidence to Review-Is There an Association Between Cognition and Upper Extremity Motor Reaction Time in Older Adults?NeuroSci · 2025Review
- Valence Effects on Episodic Memory in Young and Old Adults Following Exposure to Emotional Stimuli.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Impact of Ageing on Episodic Memory Retrieval: How Valence Influences Neural Functional Connectivity.NeuroSci · 2024Article
- A comparison between different variants of the spatial Stroop task: The influence of analytic flexibility on Stroop effect estimates and reliability.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Lexical Access Restrictions after the Age of 80.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Same same but different: Subtle but consequential differences between two measures to linearly integrate speed and accuracy (LISAS vs. BIS).Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Syntactic prediction during self-paced reading is age invariant.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2023Article
- Test-retest reliability for common tasks in vision science.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Are control processes domain-general? A replication of 'To adapt or not to adapt? The question of domain-general cognitive control' (KanRoyal Society open science · 2022Article
- Some further clarifications on age-related differences in the Stroop task: New evidence from the two-to-one Stroop paradigm.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Visual word recognition among oldest old people: The effect of age and cognitive load.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Phasic pupillary responses modulate object-based attentional prioritization.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- An Inquisit-web protocol for calculating composite inhibitory control capacity score: An individual differences approach.MethodsX · 2021Article
- Self-reported impulsivity does not predict response caution.Personality and individual differences · 2020Article
- Quantifying the benefits of using decision models with response time and accuracy data.Behavior research methods · 2020Article
- Visuo-Perceptual and Decision-Making Contributions to Visual Hallucinations in Mild Cognitive Impairment in Lewy Body Disease: Insights from a Drift Diffusion Analysis.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- Age Effects on Distraction in a Visual Task Requiring Fast Reactions: An Event-Related Potential Study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Older adults tend to have slower response times (RTs) than younger adults on cognitive tasks. This makes the examination of domain-specific deficits in aging difficult, as differences between conditions in raw RTs (RT costs) typically increase with slower average RTs. Here, we examine the mapping between 2 established approaches to dealing with this confound in the literature. The first is to use transformed RT costs, with the z-score and proportional transforms both being commonly used. The second is to use mathematical models of choice RT behavior, such as the drift-diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978). We simulated data for younger and older adults from the drift-diffusion model under 4 scenarios: (a) a domain specific deficit, (b) general slowing, (c) strategic slowing, and (d) a slowing of nondecision processes. In each scenario we varied the size of the difference between younger and older adults in the model parameters, and examined corresponding effect sizes and Type I error rates in the raw and transformed RT costs. The z-score transformation provided better control of Type I error rates than the raw or proportional costs, though did not fully control for differences in the general slowing and strategic slowing scenarios. We recommend that RT analyses are ideally supplemented by analyses of error rates where possible, as these may help to identify the presence of confounds. To facilitate this, it would be beneficial to include conditions that elicit below ceiling accuracy in tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.