4.2 Article

Age-related differences in reaction time task performance in young children

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 2, Pages 150-166

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.02.002

Keywords

Processing speed; Preschool children

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [5P01 HD038051] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [1R01 DA014661] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [1R01 MH065668] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Performance of reaction time (RT) tasks was investigated in young children and adults to test the hypothesis that age-related differences in processing speed supersede a global mechanism and are a function of specific differences in task demands and processing requirements. The sample consisted of 54 4-year-olds, 53 5-year-olds, 59 6-year-olds, and 35 adults from Russia. Using the regression approach pioneered by Brinley and the transformation method proposed by Madden and colleagues and Ridderinkhoff and van der Molen, age-related differences in processing speed differed among RT tasks with varying demands. In particular, RTs differed between children and adults on tasks that required response suppression, discrimination of color or spatial orientation, reversal of contingencies of previously learned stimulus-response rules, and greater stimulus-response complexity. Relative costs of these RT task differences were larger than predicted by the global difference hypothesis except for response suppression. Among young children, age-related differences larger than predicted by the global difference hypothesis were evident when tasks required color or spatial orientation discrimination and stimulus-response rule complexity, but not for response suppression or reversal of stimulus-response contingencies. Process-specific, age-related differences in processing speed that support heterochronicity of brain development during childhood were revealed. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available