Synchrony effects in inhibitory control over thought and action.
Abstract
Two experiments explore whether synchrony between peak circadian arousal periods and time of testing influences inhibitory efficiency for younger and older adults. Experiment 1 assesses inhibitory control over no-longer-relevant thoughts, and Experiment 2 assesses control over unwanted but strong responses, as well as performance on neuropsychological tasks that index frontal function. Inhibitory control is greatest at optimal times for both age groups and is generally greater for younger than for older adults. Performance on 2 neuropsychological measures (Stroop and Trails) also changes over the day, at least for older adults, and is correlated with inhibitory indexes, suggesting that for older adults changes in inhibition may be mediated by circadian variations in frontal functioning. By contrast, access to well-learned responses is not vulnerable to synchrony or age effects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The experiment was systematically conducted between 9:00 am and 1:30 pm to prevent individual differences in task performance.
“To prevent individual differences in task performance, we systematically conducted the experiment between 9:00 am and 1:30 pm55–57.”
From Emotion-related impulsivity moderates the cognitive interference effect of smartphone availability on working memory (2019) · cites this paper as [55]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 86 · Cited by 375
- Authors
- May, C. P., & Hasher, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- ORCID
- May, Cynthia P.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 363-379
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- OpenAlex
- W2057686253
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 3.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (AGO4306, AG1 2753)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
- Keywords
- inhibitory control, circadian rhythm, time of day effects, age differences, older adults, frontal lobe function, Stroop task, Trail Making Test, response inhibition, learned responses
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aging, Arousal, Attention, Circadian Rhythm, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Retention, Psychology, Thinking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
