ArticleScientific reports2023
A diffusion model analysis of age and individual differences in the retro-cue benefit.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reward-based prioritization in working memory is distinct from recency and due to a resource trade-off.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Optimizing the Color Shapes Task for Ambulatory Assessment and Drift Diffusion Modeling: A Factorial Experiment.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Parameter estimation of hyper-spherical diffusion models with a time-dependent threshold: An integral equation method.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The limited capacity of working memory (WM) constrains how well we can think and act. WM capacity is reduced in old age, with one explanation for this decline being a deficit in using attention to control WM contents. The retro-cue paradigm has been used to examine the ability to focus attention in WM. So far, there are conflicting findings regarding an aging deficit in the retro-cue effect. The present study evaluated age-related changes and individual differences in the retro-cue effect through a well-established computational model that combines speed and accuracy to extract underlying psychological parameters. We applied the drift-diffusion model to the data from a large sample of younger and older adults (total N = 346) that completed four retro-cue tasks. Retro-cues increased the quality of the evidence entering the decision process, reduced the time taken for memory retrieval, and changed response conservativeness for younger and older adults. An age-related decline was observed only in the retro-cue boost for evidence quality, and this was the only parameter capturing individual differences in focusing efficiency. Our results suggest that people differ in how well they can strengthen and protect a focused representation to boost evidence-quality accumulation, and this ability declines with aging.
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.