ArticleBrain and neuroscience advances
Ageing and selective inhibition of irrelevant information in an attention-demanding rapid serial visual presentation task.
Article in Brain and neuroscience advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for cognitive functions in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Feasibility of Gamified EEG Neurofeedback Combined with Adaptive Working-Memory Training in Older Adults: A Pilot Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attention involves both an ability to selectively focus on relevant information and simultaneously ignore irrelevant information (i.e. inhibitory control). Many factors impact inhibitory control such as individual differences, relative timing of stimuli presentation, distractor characteristics, and participant age. Previous research with young adults responding to an attention-demanding rapid serial visual presentations of pictures superimposed with task-irrelevant words evaluated the extent to which unattended information may be subject to inhibitory control. Surprise recognition tests following the rapid serial visual presentation task showed that recognition for unattended words presented with non-targets (i.e. non-aligned or 'NA' words) during the rapid serial visual presentation task were recognised at chance levels. However, when the unattended words were infrequently paired with the attended picture targets (i.e. target-aligned or 'TA' words), recognition rates were significantly below chance and significantly lower compared to NA words, suggesting selective inhibitory control for the previously unattended TA words. The current study adapted this paradigm to compare healthy younger and older adults' ability to engage in inhibitory control. In line with previous research, younger adults demonstrated selective inhibition with recognition rates for TA words significantly lower than NA words and chance, while NA words were recognised at chance levels. However, older adults showed no difference in recognition rates between word types (TA versus NA). Rather all items were recognised at rates significantly below chance suggesting inhibited recognition for all unattended words, regardless of when they were presented during the primary task. Finally, older adults recognised significantly fewer NA words compared to young adults. These findings suggest that older adults may experience a decline in their ability to selectively inhibit the processing of irrelevant information, while maintaining the capacity to exercise global inhibition over unattended lexical information.
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.