4.1 Article

PROCESSING SPEED AND VISUOSPATIAL EXECUTIVE FUNCTION PREDICT VISUAL WORKING MEMORY ABILITY IN OLDER ADULTS

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL AGING RESEARCH
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 1-19

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/0361073X.2012.636722

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council [201312]
  2. BBSRC
  3. EPSRC
  4. ESRC
  5. MRC
  6. MRC [G0700704] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Medical Research Council [G0700704] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [201312] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Study Context: Visual working memory (VWM) has been shown to be particularly age sensitive. Determining which measures share variance with this cognitive ability in older adults may help to elucidate the key factors underlying the effects of aging. Methods: Predictors of VWM (measured by a modified Visual Patterns Test) were investigated in a subsample (N=44, mean age=73) of older adults from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (LBC1936; Deary et al., 2007, BMC Geriatrics, 7, 28). Childhood intelligence (Moray House Test) and contemporaneous measures of processing speed (four-choice reaction time), executive function (verbal fluency; block design), and spatial working memory (backward spatial span), were assessed as potential predictors. Results: All contemporaneous measures except verbal fluency were significantly associated with VWM, and processing speed had the largest effect size (r=-.53, p<.001). In linear regression analysis, even after adjusting for childhood intelligence, processing speed and the executive measure associated with visuospatial organization accounted for 35% of the variance in VWM. Conclusion: Processing speed may affect VWM performance in older adults via speed of encoding and/or rate of rehearsal, while executive resources specifically associated with visuospatial material are also important.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available