ArticleBMC psychology2025
The effects of age and delay task duration on attentional boost effect: evidence from behavior and fNIRS.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious investigations into the impact of age on the Attentional Boost Effect (ABE) have produced inconsistent findings, primarily attributable to insufficient exploration of delay task duration as a critical variable. Current understanding of the neural bases underlying age-related effects in ABE remains incomplete, warranting further neurophysiological investigation.
methodsExperiment 1 examined the effects of age and delay task duration on ABE with a mixed design of 2 (age: young adults, young-old adults) × 2 (delay task duration: 2 min, 10 min) × 2 (word type: target, distractor). Experiment 2 investigated the neural bases of age-related effects on ABE using fNIRS, with a mixed design of 2 (age: young adults, young-old adults) × 2 (word type: target, distractor). Young adults were college students and young-old adults were recruited from the community and university. Both experiments employed the study-test paradigm.
resultsExperiment 1 found that when the delay task duration was 2 min, both young and young-old adults exhibited ABE. When the delay task duration was 10 min, only young adults exhibited ABE. The effect size of ABE declined as delay task duration increased, with comparable magnitude of decline in two age groups. Experiment 2 found that individuals showed greater activation in the right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) and bilateral Pars Triangularis Areas (PTA) under the target condition relative to distractor condition. Young-old adults showed greater activation in the right DLPFC, right PTA and Primary Visual Cortex (V1) relative to young adults.
conclusionsAge influenced the formation of ABE in the encoding phase. Young-old adults showed greater activation in the right frontal lobe and occipital lobe to maintain ABE, which supported the Compensation-related Utilization of Neural Circuits Hypothesis. Young-old adults' ABE disappeared as delay task duration increased, and the magnitude of reduction in the effect size of ABE was comparable in both age groups, which partially contradicted the Vulnerable Boost Hypothesis. The frontal lobe played a pivotal role in ABE formation.
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.