Cortex
Volume 46, Issue 4 , Pages 564-574 , April 2010

Predictive knowledge of stimulus relevance does not influence top-down suppression of irrelevant information in older adults

  • Theodore P. Zanto

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • Department Physiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • ,
  • Kelly Hennigan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • Department Physiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • ,
  • Mattias Östberg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • Department Physiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • ,
  • Wesley C. Clapp

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • Department Physiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • ,
  • Adam Gazzaley

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • Department Physiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. UCSF – MC2240, 600 16th St, Genentech Hall, Room N472J, San Francisco, CA 94158-2517, USA.

Received 6 December 2008 ,Revised 2 May 2009 ,Accepted 5 August 2009.

References 

  1. Bar M. A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2003;15:600–609
  2. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate – a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological. 1995;57:289–300
  3. Braver TS, Barch DM, Keys BA, Carter CS, Cohen JD, Kaye JA, et al. Context processing in older adults: Evidence for a theory relating cognitive control to neurobiology in healthy aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology General. 2001;130:746–763
  4. Delis DC, Kramer JH, Kaplan E, Ober BA. California Verbal Learning Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2000;
  5. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2004;134:9–21
  6. Eriksen CW, Hoffman JE. Selective attention - noise suppression or signal enhancement. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1974;4:587–589
  7. Folk CL, Hoyer WJ. Aging and shifts of visual spatial attention. Psychology and Aging. 1992;7:453–465
  8. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975;12:189–198
  9. Frith C. A framework for studying the neural basis of attention. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39:1367–1371
  10. Gazzaley A, Clapp W, Kelley J, McEvoy K, Knight R, D'Esposito M. Age-related top-down suppression deficit in the early stages of cortical visual memory processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;105:13122–13126
  11. Gazzaley A, Cooney JW, McEvoy K, Knight RT, D'Esposito M. Top-down enhancement and suppression of the magnitude and speed of neural activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2005;17:507–517
  12. Gazzaley A, Cooney JW, Rissman J, D'Esposito M. Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging. Nature Neuroscience. 2005;8:1298–1300
  13. Gomez Gonzalez CM, Clark VP, Fan S, Luck SJ, Hillyard SA. Sources of attention-sensitive visual event-related potentials. Brain Topography. 1994;7:41–51
  14. Hartley AA, Kieley JM, Slabach EH. Age-differences and similarities in the effects of cues and prompts. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. 1990;16:523–537
  15. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working memory, comprehension and aging: A review and a new view. In:  Bower GH editors. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1988;p. 193–225
  16. Hasher L, Zacks RT, and May CP. Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In Gopher D and Koriat A (Eds), Attention and Performance VXII. Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999: 653–675.
  17. Hillyard SA, Anllo-Vento L. Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1998;95:781–787
  18. Hillyard SA, Vogel EK, Luck SJ. Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: Electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 1998;353:1257–1270
  19. Jordan TC, Rabbitt PMA. Response-times to stimuli increasing complexity as a function of aging. British Journal of Psychology. 1977;68:189–201
  20. Kastner S, Ungerleider LG. The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39:1263–1276
  21. Kliegl R, Mayr U, Krampe RT. Time accuracy functions for determining process and person differences – an application to cognitive aging. Cognitive Psychology. 1994;26:134–164
  22. Kok A. Age-related changes in involuntary and voluntary attention as reflected in components of the event-related potential (ERP). Biological Psychology. 2000;54:107–143
  23. Lorenzo-Lopez L, Amenedo E, Cadaveira F. Feature processing during visual search in normal aging: Electrophysiological evidence. Neurobiology of Aging. 2008;29:1101–1110
  24. Lorenzo-Lopez L, Amenedo E, Pascual-Marqui RD, Cadaveira F. Neural correlates of age-related visual search decline: A combined ERP and sloreta study. NeuroImage. 2008;41:511–524
  25. Madden DJ. Aging and visual attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;16:70–74
  26. Muller MM, Keil A. Neuronal synchronization and selective color processing in the human brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2004;16:503–522
  27. Nissen MJ, Corkin S. Effectiveness of attentional cueing in older and younger adults. Journals of Gerontology. 1985;40:185–191
  28. Pessoa L, Kastner S, Ungerleider LG. Neuroimaging studies of attention: From modulation of sensory processing to top-down control. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;23:3990–3998
  29. Ploner CJ, Ostendorf F, Brandt SA, Gaymard BM, Rivaud-Pechoux S, Ploner M. Behavioural relevance modulates access to spatial working memory in humans. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 2001;13:357–363
  30. Posner MI, Snyder CRR, Davidson BJ. Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General. 1980;109:160–174
  31. Rainer G, Asaad WF, Miller EK. Selective representation of relevant information by neurons in the primate prefrontal cortex. Nature. 1998;393:577–579
  32. Reitan R. Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1958;8:271–276
  33. Rowe G, Valderrama S, Hasher L, Lenartowicz A. Attentional disregulation: A benefit for implicit memory. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21:826–830
  34. Rugg MD, Milner AD, Lines CR, Phalp R. Modulation of visual event-related potentials by spatial and nonspatial visual selective attention. Neuropsychologia. 1987;25:85–96
  35. Rutman AM, Clapp WC, Chadick JZ, and Gazzaley A. Early top-down control of visual processing predicts working memory performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, in press.
  36. Salthouse TA. The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review. 1996;103:403–428
  37. Serences JT, Yantis S, Culberson A, Awh E. Preparatory activity in visual cortex indexes distractor suppression during covert spatial orienting. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2004;92:3538–3545
  38. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1935;18:643
  39. Surwillo W. Timing of behavior in senescence and the role of the CNS. In:  Talland GA editors. Human Aging and Behavior. London: Academic Press; 1968;
  40. Tombaugh TN. Trail making test a and b: Normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2004;19:203–214
  41. Valdes-Sosa M, Bobes MA, Rodriguez V, Pinilla T. Switching attention without shifting the spotlight: Object-based attentional modulation of brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1998;10:137–151
  42. Verhaeghen P, Basak C. Ageing and switching of the focus of attention in working memory: Results from a modified n-back task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A-Human Experimental Psychology. 2005;58:134–154
  43. Verhaeghen P, Hoyer WJ. Aging, focus switching, and task switching in a continuous calculation task: Evidence toward a new working memory control process. Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition. 2007;14:22–39
  44. Verhaeghen P, Kliegl R, Mayr U. Sequential and coordinative complexity in time-accuracy functions for mental arithmetic. Psychology and Aging. 1997;12:555–564
  45. Vogel EK, McCollough AW, Machizawa MG. Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature. 2005;438:500–503
  46. Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-revised Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation; 1981;
  47. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1982;17:37–49
  48. Zanto TP, Gazzaley A. Neural suppression of irrelevant information underlies optimal working memory performance. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009;29:3059–3066
  49. Zanto TP, Toy B, and Gazzaley A. Delays in neural processing during working memory encoding in normal aging. Neuropsychologia, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.003.

PII: S0010-9452(09)00245-7

doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.003

Cortex
Volume 46, Issue 4 , Pages 564-574 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution