CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and MemoryAging and Gerontology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Age differences in intra-individual variability in simple and choice reaction time: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open access
Dykiert, Dominika, Der, Geoff, Starr, John M., Deary, Ian J.·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0045759PMC PMC3469552
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intra-individual variability in reaction time (RT IIV) is considered to be an index of central nervous system functioning. Such variability is elevated in neurodegenerative diseases or following traumatic brain injury. It has also been suggested to increase with age in healthy ageing. OBJECTIVES: To investigate and quantify age differences in RT IIV in healthy ageing; to examine the effect of different tasks and procedures; to compare raw and mean-adjusted measures of RT IIV. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases: PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE, and hand searching of reference lists of relevant studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: English language journal articles, books or book chapters, containing quantitative empirical data on simple and/or choice RT IIV. Samples had to include younger (under 60 years) and older (60 years and above) human adults. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were evaluated in terms of sample representativeness and data treatment. Relevant data were extracted, using a specially-designed form, from the published report or obtained directly from the study authors. Age-group differences in raw and RT-mean-adjusted measures of simple and choice RT IIV were quantified using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Older adults (60+ years) had greater RT IIV than younger (20-39) and middle-aged (40-59) adults. Age effects were larger in choice RT tasks than in simple RT tasks. For all measures of RT IIV, effect sizes were larger for the comparisons between older and younger adults than between older and middle-aged adults, indicating that the age-related increases in RT IIV are not limited to old age. Effect sizes were also larger for raw than for RT-mean-adjusted RT IIV measures. CONCLUSIONS: RT IIV is greater among older adults. Some (but not all) of the age-related increases in RT IIV are accounted for by the increased RT means.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0045759

Cites

72 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flowchart of the review process.
Figure 1 Flowchart of the review process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in raw simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 2 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in raw simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in raw simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 3 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in raw simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in mean-adjusted simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 4 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in mean-adjusted simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in mean-adjusted simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 5 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in mean-adjusted simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in raw choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 6 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in raw choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in raw choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 7 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in raw choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in mean-adjusted choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 8 Effect sizes for old versus young comparisons in mean-adjusted choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in mean-adjusted choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.
Figure 9 Effect sizes for old versus middle-aged comparisons in mean-adjusted choice reaction time intra-individual variability studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Funnel plots showing little evidence of publication bias of raw or mean-adjusted simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies (left panel), with some bias apparent among studies of raw and mean-adjusted choice reaction time intra-individual variability (right panel). Open symbols = actual studies, filled symbols = “missing” data points identified by the trim and fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a,b).
Figure 10 Funnel plots showing little evidence of publication bias of raw or mean-adjusted simple reaction time intra-individual variability studies (left panel), with some bias apparent among studies of raw and mean-adjusted choice reaction time intra-individual variability (right panel). Open symbols = actual studies, filled symbols = “missing” data points identified by the trim and fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a,b).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [18]Brebner JT, Welford AT (1980) Introduction: an historical background sketch. In Reaction times Welford AT, editor. Academic Press, New York 1– 23.
  2. [19]Lahtela K, Niemi P, Kuusela V (1985) Adult visual choice-reaction time, age, sex, and preparedness. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 26: 357– 362. 4089563
  3. [30]Hogan MJ (2003) Average speed or variable speed–what do older adults really need? Irish Journal of Psychology 24: 161– 183.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 218

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dykiert, D., Der, G., Starr, J. M., & Deary, I. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Dykiert, Dominika
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-10-11
Volume
7
Issue
10
Pages
e45759
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0045759
PMC
PMC3469552
OpenAlex
W2114369674
Cited by
218
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Edinburgh (G0700704/84698)
  • Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology (G0700704/84698)
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Medical Research Council (G0700704)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (G0700704/84698)
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
within-person variability, reaction time, age differences, healthy aging, older adults, choice reaction time, simple reaction time, central nervous system function, cognitive aging
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Publication Bias

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