ArticlePeerJ2020
Age-related alterations in inhibitory control investigated using the minimally delayed oculomotor response task.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antisaccade error rates and gap effects in psychosis syndromes from bipolar-schizophrenia network for intermediate phenotypes 2 (B-SNIP2).Psychological medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthy, older adults are widely reported to experience cognitive decline, including impairments in inhibitory control. However, this general proposition has recently come under scrutiny because ageing effects are highly variable between individuals, are task dependent, and are sometimes not distinguished from general age-related slowing. We recently developed the minimally delayed oculomotor response (MDOR) task in which participants are presented with a simple visual target step, and instructed to saccade not to the target when it appears (a prosaccade response), but when it disappears (i.e. on target offset). Varying the target display duration (TDD) prevents offset timing being predictable from the time of target onset, and saccades prior to the offset are counted as errors. A comparison of MDOR task performance in a group of 22 older adults (mean age 62 years, range 50-72 years) with that in a group of 39 younger adults (22 years, range 19-27 years) demonstrated that MDOR latency was significantly increased in the older group by 34-68 ms depending on TDD. However, when MDOR latencies were corrected by subtracting the latency observed in a standard prosaccade task, the latency difference between groups was abolished. There was a larger latency modulation with TDD in the older group which was observed even when their generally longer latencies were taken into account. Error rates were significantly increased in the older group. An analysis of the timing distribution of errors demonstrated that most errors were failures to inhibit responses to target onsets. When error distributions were used to isolate clear inhibition failures from other types of error, the older group still exhibited significantly higher error rates as well as a higher residual error rate. Although MDOR latency in older participants may largely reflect a general slowing in the oculomotor system with age, both the latency modulation and error rate results are consistent with an age-related inhibitory control deficit. How this relates to performance on other inhibitory control tasks remains to be investigated.
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.