Cited by 63Cognitive Abilities and TestingAging and Gerontology ResearchCognitive Functions and Memory

Aging and switching the focus of attention in working memory: age differences in item availability but not in item accessibility

Open access
Basak, C., Verhaeghen, P.·2011·The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate age differences in working memory processing, specifically the accuracy of retrieval of items stored outside the immediate focus of attention. METHODS: Younger and older adults were tested on a modified N-Back task with probes presented in an unpredictable order (implying also that some trials necessitated a switch in the focus of attention and others that did not). RESULTS: Older adults showed intact item accessibility, that is, after taking general slowing into account, older adults were as fast as younger adults in locating the item in working memory. We found age differences, however, in item availability: Older adults were less likely to correctly retrieve items stored outside the focus of attention. Smaller age differences in availability were also found for items stored inside the focus of attention. DISCUSSION: These results strongly suggest that item availability is a cognitive primitive that is not reducible to more basic constructs such as item accessibility or simple speed of processing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geronb/gbr028

Cites

25 of 26 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Basak, C., & Verhaeghen, P.
Affiliations
  • Rice University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
Published
2011-05-12
Volume
66B
Issue
5
Pages
519-526
ISSN
  • 1079-5014 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5368
OpenAlex
W2149069687
Cited by
63
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series B (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG016201, R01 AG16201)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
aging, working memory, attentional focus, age differences, n-back task, cognitive aging, processing speed
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Serial Learning, Young Adult, Executive Function

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