Attentional control in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease.
Abstract
Objective Attentional control, the ability to maintain goal-directedness in the face of distraction, has been shown to decline in normal aging (NA) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet the nature and extent of deficits is under debate. This study investigated attentional control in NA and AD compared to healthy young adults in several tasks such as setting, suppressing, switching, and preparing attention. Method Fifty-two participants (17 AD, 17 NA, and 18 young participants) underwent the Tower of London, the Zoo map test, the Stroop test, letter verbal fluency, a computerized version of the Rule shift cards tests, the Trail making test, the Plus-minus test, and a reaction time task with variable preparatory intervals. Results Analyses of variance showed that NA as compared to young participants were impaired in the Tower of London, the Stroop test, and the Rule shift cards tests. AD as compared to NA participants were impaired in all tests except the Stroop test. Principal component analysis in young adults confirmed the modularity of attentional tasks, which was reduced in NA and AD participants. Principal component analysis in all populations showed a decline of attentional control with NA and AD regardless of the tasks, with an increase in between-participants variability only between young and NA participants. Conclusions Attentional control dysfunction is different in NA and AD: NA affects suppressing attention, switching attention for unpredictable but not predictable ev…
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?
Performance on the incongruent trials of the flanker task shows clinical utility in identifying deficits associated with neurological disorder.
“Performance on the incongruent trials provides a measure of inhibitory control in the context of visual selective attention (which can also be considered a measure of executive attention; e.g., Fan et al., 2002), and shows clinical utility in identifying deficits associated with neurological disorder (e.g., Coubard et al., 2011).”
From NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Validation of Executive Function Measures in Adults (2014) · cites this paper as Coubard et al., 2011
Cites
Verbal fluency performance in dementia of the Alzheimer’s type: a meta-analysis
Henry, J. D., Crawford, J. R., & Phillips, L. H. (2004) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.02.001 · Cited by 847 · see citing works
An fMRI study of the Trail Making Test
Zakzanis, K. K., Mraz, R., & Graham, S. J. (2005) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.03.013 · Cited by 408 · see citing works
Vallesi, A., Shallice, T., & Walsh, V. (2006) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj163 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Age differences in fluid intelligence: contributions of general slowing and frontal decline
Bugg, J. M., Zook, N. A., DeLosh, E. L., Davalos, D. B., & Davis, H. P. (2006) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2006.02.006 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kelly, M. E., Loughrey, D., Lawlor, B. A., Robertson, I. H., Walsh, C., & Brennan, S. (2014) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2014.02.004 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Validation of Executive Function Measures in Adults
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., Conway, K. P., Gershon, R., & Weintraub, S. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000472 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Executive Functions in Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review
Guarino, A., Favieri, F., Boncompagni, I., Agostini, F., Cantone, M., & Casagrande, M. (2019) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2018.00437 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Ferrer, I. (2012) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.03.005 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Jiang, L., Cao, X., Li, T., Tang, Y., Li, W., Wang, J., Chan, R. C., & Li, C. (2016) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2016.00118 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
- Authors
- Coubard, O. A., Ferrufino, L., Boura, M., Gripon, A., Renaud, M., & Bherer, L.
- Affiliations
- Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
- Venue
- Neuropsychology
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 353-367
- ISSN
- 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-1559
- OpenAlex
- W2083003203
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- attentional control, normal aging, Alzheimer's disease, set-shifting, attentional suppression, attentional preparation, distractibility, Tower of London, Stroop task, Trail Making Test, reaction time
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Stroop Test
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
