ArticlePsychology and aging2020
Age differences in cross-task bleeding.
Article in Psychology and aging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
The present study investigated age-related differences in the ability to constrain attention to the current task, without contamination (bleeding) from an upcoming decision. Each experiment included two blocks of trials. During Block 1, participants initially incidentally encoded a list of high- and low-frequency words, after which they pronounced aloud the studied words intermixed with a new set of words during a test phase. Block 2 was identical to Block 1 with the exception that after pronouncing each word aloud, participants made an additional decision (episodic recognition decision in Experiments 1 and 2 and animacy decision in Experiment 3). In the first two experiments, older adults showed disproportionate slowing in their response times to pronounce the words when they additionally had to make a recognition judgment afterward (Block 2) compared to when they only pronounced the words aloud (Block 1). Importantly, the difference between high-frequency and low-frequency words (the word frequency effect) was disproportionately attenuated for older adults in Block 2 compared to Block 1 and compared to younger adults. These results suggest that older adults experience greater cross-task bleeding than younger adults because word frequency has opposing effects in pronunciation and recognition tasks. As predicted, this age modulation of the word frequency effect in pronunciation performance was not replicated in Experiment 3 when participants made an animacy judgment, wherein word frequency effects act in concert with those of the pronunciation task. Discussion focuses on age-related differences in the ability to constrain attention to a current task. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 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.