4.4 Article

Reduced suppression or labile memory? Mechanisms of inefficient filtering of irrelevant information in older adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 637-650

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.637

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG21887] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cognitive aging theories emphasize the decrease in efficiency of inhibitory processes and attention control in normal aging, which, in turn, may result in reduction of working memory Function. Accordingly, some of these age-related changes May be due to faster sensory memory decay or to inefficient filtering of irrelevant sensory information (sensory gating). Here, event-related brain potentials and the event-related optical signal were recorded in younger and older adults passively listening to tone trains. To determine whether age differentially affects decay of sensory memory templates over short intervals, trains were separated by delays of either 1 or 5 sec. To determine whether age affects the Suppression of responses to unattended repeated stimuli, WC evaluated the brain activity elicited by Successive train Stimuli. Some trains started with a shorter-duration Stimulus (deviant trains). Results showed that both electrical and optical responses to tones were more persistent with repeated stimulation in older adults than in younger adults, whereas the effects of delay were similar in the two groups. A mismatch negativity (MMN) was elicited by the first Stimulus in deviant trains. This MMN was larger for 1- than 5-sec delay, but did not differ across groups. These data suggest that age-related changes in sensory processing are likely due to inefficient filtering of repeated information, rather than to faster sensory memory decay. This inefficient Filtering may be due to, or interact with, reduced attention control. Furthermore, it may increase the noise levels in the information processing system and thus contribute to problems with working memory and speed of processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据