ArticlePloS one2024
Decomposing working memory subprocesses with the reference-back paradigm: Event-related potentials and age-related differences.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used a data-driven approach to study the electrophysiological correlates of the working memory subprocesses revealed by the reference-back paradigm. In the absence of prior research, we focused on how aging affects the four subprocesses: updating, substitution, gate opening, and gate closing. We conducted our experiment with 24 younger adults (M = 20.17±1.47) and 23 older adults (M = 67.35±4.01). Significant reaction time costs were observed for all four subprocesses, but age-related differences were found only in substitution, which was larger in older than younger adults, indicating it as being the most vulnerable subprocess in aging. Using difference waves, we identified event-related potential components that characterize the subprocesses we studied. Regarding updating: three occipital negativities between 80-180 ms, 300-400 ms, and 400-1,000 ms were observed, with only the latter range showing age group differences. Source analysis showed larger activity differences in the right frontal and temporal areas for younger adults. Regarding substitution: a frontal positivity between 250-600 ms emerged in younger adults, while a posterior positivity between 550-750 ms was found in older adults indicating different underlying processes supported by sLORETA results. Regarding gate opening: three parieto-occipital components were identified: a negativity between 150-250 ms, a positivity between 300-500 ms, and a positivity between 500-700 ms, all showing age-related differences. Regarding gate closing: we found an occipital negativity between 150-300 ms and a frontal positivity between 300-600 ms, neither of which changed between the age groups. From our findings, we conclude that the process of protecting information (gate closing) remains stable with age, despite older adults' sensitivity to interference. Conversely, we observed age-related differences in gate opening, which may have led to different strategies being used by the two age groups during substitution (the process by which new information is incorporated into working memory), as reflected in the distinct brain activity patterns observed.
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.