PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Exp Aging Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC4902024
NIHMSID: NIHMS791616

Visual Acuity does not Moderate Effect Sizes of Higher-Level Cognitive Tasks

Abstract

Background

Declining visual capacities in older adults have been posited as a driving force behind adult age differences in higher-order cognitive functions (e.g., the “common cause” hypothesis of Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994). McGowan, Patterson and Jordan (2013) also found that a surprisingly large number of published cognitive aging studies failed to include adequate measures of visual acuity. However, a recent meta-analysis of three studies (LaFleur & Salthouse, 2014) failed to find evidence that visual acuity moderated or mediated age differences in higher-level cognitive processes. In order to provide a more extensive test of whether visual acuity moderates age differences in higher-level cognitive processes, we conducted a more extensive meta-analysis of topic.

Methods

Using results from 456 studies, we calculated effect sizes for the main effect of age across four cognitive domains (attention, executive function, memory, and perception/language) separately for five levels of visual acuity criteria (no criteria, undisclosed criteria, self-reported acuity, 20/80-20/31, and 20/30 or better).

Results

As expected, age had a significant effect on each cognitive domain. However, these age effects did not further differ as a function of visual acuity criteria.

Conclusion

The current meta-analytic, cross-sectional results suggest that visual acuity is not significantly related to age group differences in higher-level cognitive performance—thereby replicating LaFleur and Salthouse (2014). Further efforts are needed to determine whether other measures of visual functioning (e.g. contrast sensitivity, luminance) affect age differences in cognitive functioning.

Recently, McGowan, Patterson and Jordan (2013) noted concerns regarding the lack of visual acuity assessment in aging studies involving linguistic stimuli. By exploring the incidence of specific visual acuity criteria used, these researchers found that the majority of 240 studies using linguistic stimuli published from 2000–2010 in Experiment Aging Research, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, and Psychology and Aging either made no mention of the visual acuity of their participants (59%) or relied on self-report (8.8%). Furthermore, numerous studies documented visual acuity capacities with no mention of a specific assessment (17.9%), and just over 14% of articles had documented participants' visual abilities while also providing the specific assessment that was utilized. Thus, a concern in this paucity of visual acuity screening in studies of cognitive aging is that visual acuity deficits in older adults might be moderating or mediating age-related differences in higher-order cognitive performance (e.g., attention, executive function, memory, and perception/language).

Considering the widespread decline in visual sensory processing that is normative to the aging process (Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994), it is alarming that so many studies have not controlled for acuity in their comparisons between younger and older participants. Moreover, it is also conceivable that the wide array of inclusionary criteria (e.g. Snellen 20/20, Snellen 20/40, self-report) incorporated into studies across several domains of cognitive function may also have an impact on the interpretation of results. For example, numerous reports have provided evidence of a dissociation between subjective and objectively measured visual acuity (Friedman et al., 1999; Ross et al., 1999; Warrian, Altangerel, & Spaeth, (2010). While visual acuity assessment is time consuming and requires trained examiners, there is evidence that that the large stimuli and proper lighting used in earlier studies may not preclude declining abilities from influencing performance (Skeel et al., 2003; Skeel et al., 2006).

However, La Fleur and Salthouse (2014) recently reported a meta-analysis on three of Salthouse’s past studies (Salthouse, Hambrick & McGuthry, 1998; Salthouse, 2013, 2014) that examined the relationship between age-related differences in processing speed and memory with visual acuity. Two of these datasets were cross-sectional, and one was longitudinal. They stated: “In conclusion, although we confirmed prior findings of moderate relations between sensory ability and measures of cognitive functioning, our results are not consistent with the hypothesis that age-related declines in sensory ability contribute to age-related declines in cognitive functioning” (p. 1208). La Fleur and Salthouse made this conclusion because their mediation analyses were inconclusive and because their observed relations between visual acuity and processing speed and memory were constant across all adult ages. Consequently, we conducted the present more comprehensive meta-analysis to follow-up on the LaFleur and Salthouse meta-analysis to assess the generality of the earlier finding of no moderation of visual acuity on age-related differences in higher cognitive processes. We believe that it is important to replicate these earlier findings because of the importance of the common cause hypothesis originally proposed by Lindenberger and Baltes (1994) to theories of cognitive aging.

In the present project, we meta-analyzed the data from 456 cognitive aging studies published from 1995 to 2013 using the Pubmed academic database, as well as searching the aforementioned cognitive aging journals. The major issue of interest was whether the effect size of age would vary as a function of visual acuity category and/or higher-level processing domain. If the common cause theory can be applied to visual acuity, we assumed that studies that did not assess visual acuity, or used self-report indices of visual acuity, or studies in which visual acuity ranges were lower (20/80 to 20/31) would have larger disparities between younger and older adults’ higher-level cognitive performances than studies in which visual acuity was higher (20/30 or better). That is, if all participants (younger and older) were required to have 20/30 visual acuity, or better, than the average age deficit in higher-level cognitive performance would be smaller than if participants were required to have a minimum of just 20/40 visual acuity, or higher (because the average visual acuity would have tended to be higher in younger adults). Building on this logic, we predicted that if visual acuity modulated age-related differences in higher-cognitive function, then the effect size for age in meta-analyses should be greater for the three groups expected to have poorer visual acuity (e.g., see McGowan et al., 2013).

The Common Cause Theory of Cognitive Aging

Given that there is frequently a lack of consensus in the cross-sectional and longitudinal cognitive aging literature (e.g., is there general, process-specific, or domain-specific slowing?), part of this lack of consensus may be due to the potentially confounding effect of uncontrolled visual acuity differences across age. A critical theory related to this issue is the common cause theory (Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994; Baltes & Lindenberger, 1997) of cognitive aging. For example, Lindenberger and Baltes (1994) examined a sample of 156 older adults from the Berlin Aging Study (mean age = 84.9 years, range = 70–103 years). They found that visual and auditory acuity accounted for 93.1% of the age-related reliable variance in intelligence. This type of empirical evidence has led common cause advocates to hypothesize that underlying age-related differences in visual or auditory sensory function moderate (change the direction or intensity of the age effect) or mediate (cause) age-related differences across a wide number of cognitive domains (Baltes & Lindenberger, 1997; Li & Lindenberger, 2002; Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994; Lindenberger & Ghisletta, 2009). There is evidence for age-related declines in sensory function. Indeed, previous efforts have found significant adult age-related differences in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual field (e.g., Brabyn et al., 2001; Evans & Rowlands, 2004; Glass, 2007; Greene & Madden, 1987; Klein et al., 2006; Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994; Madden & Greene, 1987;). These differences have been found across multiple settings and even in participants using their current optical correction (Brabyn et al., 2001; Greene & Madden, 1987; Skeel et al., 2003). Other research groups have explored the impact of acuity in processing visually-presented stimuli through the use of occlusion filters in younger adults (e.g., Gilmore, Spinks & Thomas, 2006). However, findings under this framework have reached inconsistent conclusions, perhaps due to these blurring filters impeding the functionality of neural compensatory mechanisms in the visual processing of experimental stimuli (Bertone et al., 2007). Regardless, dependent upon the requirements of the particular cognitive task, age-related deficits in visual information processing have been suggested in both the periphery as well as central processing areas (Berry et al., 2010; Elliott et al., 1990; Owsley, 2011; Zhang et al., 2008).

However, the literature is mixed with regard to whether sensory decrements are correlated with, moderate, or mediate age-related differences in higher cognitive function. For example, Lindenberger and Baltes (1994) and Baltes and Lindenberger (1997), Anstey, Lord, and Williams (1997), Anstey and Smith (1999), Salthouse, Hambrick and McGuthry (1998), and Salthouse, Hancock, Meinz, and Hambrick (1996) all reported evidence of sensory mediation of age-related differences in cognitive processing. However, Allen et al. (2001), Anstey, Luszcz, and Sanchez (2001), Baena, Allen, Kaut, and Hall (2010), Schmiedek and Li (2004), and Verhaeghen (2003, 2011) all found evidence of substantial indirect effects of age on higher-level cognitive variables that were not accounted for (mediated by) common causes such as sensory processes (e.g., visual acuity). Consequently, past results using causal modeling (SEM) methods and meta-analysis have resulted in seemingly inconsistent results with regard to sensory effects accounting for age-related differences in higher-level processes. An important contribution of the present study is that we present a meta-analysis of data from a much larger sample of studies (456) than has been used in the past (e.g., LaFleur & Salthouse, 2014; and past SEM studies). Our goal is to assess whether the effect size of age-related differences in four different cognitive domains for the present substantial set of experimental studies vary as a function of visual acuity in younger and older adults.

The Present Study

There are two reasons for reporting the present meta-analyses in spite of the fact that La Fleur and Salthouse (2014) recently reported a similar study. First, La Fleur and Salthouse reported results from just two cognitive domains (processing speed and memory), and our design includes four domains (attention, executive function, memory, and perception/language) as well as multiple visual acuity categories (no assessment of visual acuity, undisclosed visual acuity, self-reported assessment of visual acuity, 20/80-20/31, and 20/30 or better). Second, given the importance of the common cause hypothesis (Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994) to the cognitive aging field, it is important to replicate these earlier results with a larger set of studies. Consequently, the present meta-analysis of visual acuity levels and their relationship to age-related differences in higher-level cognitive function uses a sample 456 aging studies across four cognitive domains and four levels of visual acuity.

METHOD

Literature Search

To further the effort of McGowan et al. (2013) and La Fleur and Salthouse (2014), we surveyed the literature from the online PubMed academic database (PubMed.gov) in conjunction with the databases for three journals used by McGowan and colleagues: Psychology and aging, Experimental Aging Research, and The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, as well as many other journals. To be included in the meta-analysis, studies were required to; (1) be cross-sectional in nature (because so few longitudinal studies on this topic have been published), (2) have documented at least one age group comparison as a main effect, (3) have documented raw statistics in the form of Pearson's r, regression coefficient R2, variance F ratio, Student's t, β, or Spearman's ρ, (4) involve cognitive tasks in which stimuli were presented visually and performance could be objectively measured (i.e. by reaction time, percentage correct, or overall task performance), and (6) for the circumstances in which multiple studies were incorporated into a single publication, contain an orthogonal sample with participants not participating in any other portion of the study. Data collection took place in two stages. Stage one involved collecting studies from the PubMed database and from the three journals dating back to 2002. After examining the characteristics of these studies, we then conducted an additional search in the three journals dating back to 1995, targeting only studies that incorporated objectively measured visual acuity criteria in order to evenly distribute our categorizations and allow for representative comparison across visual acuity criteria for each cognitive domain.

Coding Procedure

In total, 456 studies were incorporated into the statistical analyses. We categorized these studies by visual acuity criteria and four cognitive domains: attention, executive function, memory, and perception. Many studies recorded measures from more than one domain. However, to satisfy independence requirements for the meta-analysis, only measures from one category per study were added into the analysis. For these studies with multiple domains, domains were chosen based upon either the emphasis of the study or, and provided that no emphasis was apparent, we assigned studies by need of the statistical analysis (i.e., to evenly distribute category cell counts). Building upon the visual acuity criteria employed by McGowan et al. (2013), studies were assigned to seven separate visual acuity categories in the current protocol. However, it should be noted that we “over-sampled” in certain categories so that we would have enough cases—so the present results cannot be directly compared to those of McGowan et al. The first and most frequently assigned category (36.4% of cases) included studies in which no visual acuity criterion was required for participation. Separate categories were also established for studies documenting self-reported visual acuity (5.9% of cases) and adequate visual acuity with no documentation of the specific acuity threshold required (23.0% of cases). The final two criteria incorporated studies that provided a specific acuity threshold required to participate. All presented visual acuity thresholds were converted to Snellen ratios and initially assigned to the categories of 20/80-20/41, 20/40-20/31, 20/30-20/21, or 20/20 or better. Due to a limited number of studies utilizing the thresholds of 20/80 and 20/20 or better, the visual acuity categories were reduced to two categories for analysis, 20/80-20/31 and 20/30 or better. The classification of studies to both cognitive domain and visual acuity category is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Categorical Assignment of Articles by Visual Acuity Criteria & Cognitive Domain.

As with McGowan et al. (2013), we also examined the prevalence of studies that documented the use of a specific visual acuity screener instrument. For 158 studies in which a specific threshold was required for participation, 53.8% (85) of studies documented the utilized measure of visual acuity. For comparison, 41.9% (44) of studies omitting documentation of an acuity threshold listed a vision assessment tool. However, a Chi-square test of independence between these two likelihoods failed to reach statistical significance, χ2 = 3.58, p = .058, thus providing evidence that researchers using a specific exclusionary criteria were no more likely to document an assessment tool than those not utilizing a specific visual acuity criteria.

Effect Size Calculation

For each study, the raw statistic characterizing the main effect of age group (r, R2, F, t, β, or ρ) was converted to Fisher’s Z (Zr), weighted by the study sample size (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). When necessary, the sign of the raw statistics were adjusted such that positive Zr values indicate better performance (i.e., higher accuracy, faster reaction time) in younger adults relative to older adults. We then averaged the Zr values across studies, separately for each visual acuity criteria and cognitive domain, and then converted back to r values (see Hedges & Vevea, 1998).

RESULTS

The averaged effect sizes (r) are presented separately for each visual acuity criterion and cognitive domain in Table 2. We also calculated overall values for each visual acuity criterion by collapsing across the cognitive domains and for each cognitive domain by collapsing across visual acuity criteria. These moderate to large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) indicate that, as expected, older adults performed significantly worse on all cognitive tasks than younger adults. Multiple Z tests of the weighted effect sizes (Zr) further confirmed that the effect of age on cognitive performance was significant for each cognitive domain at each visual acuity criteria (Z’s > 5.43, p’s < 0.001).

Table 2
Average effect sizes for each visual acuity criteria and cognitive domain

Additional Z tests of the differences between the weighted effect sizes revealed that the effect of age did not significantly differ across the visual acuity criteria for any cognitive domain (Z’s < |1.11|, p’s > 0.13). Similar non-significant differences were observed across the visual acuity criteria when using the overall cognitive measure (i.e., collapsed across domains) (Z’s < |0.49|, p’s > 0.31). See Appendix B for individual study categorizations with their associated weighted effect size values.

DISCUSSION

The main finding of the present meta-analysis of 456 cognitive aging studies across four domains was that there were no significant differences in effect size for age across the five categories of visual acuity in any of the four different cognitive domains. A key assumption was that if the visual acuity data supported the predictions of the common cause hypothesis, then there would be larger relative sensory decrements in the unreported VA, self-reported VA, and 20/80-20/31 visual acuity categories than in the 20/30 or above VA category (because this final category of the highest VA group required that younger and older adults had a minimum of 20/30 visual acuity). In the other groups, one would expect that older adults would have poorer visual acuity than younger adults in causes in which visual acuity was not controlled, and thus, the effect size for age should largest in the groups with relatively larger age-related differences in VA. However, the effect sizes for age did not differ across the five VA groups in any of the four cognitive domains, or overall (i.e., when collapsing into a single cognitive domain). These results therefore suggest that one type of sensory effect, visual acuity, does not moderate age-related differences in higher cognitive processes in seeming violation of the predictions of the common cause hypothesis (Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994; Baltes & Lindenberger, 1997).

With regard to the limitations of the current design, the most apparent consideration is that we drew our results from a single measure of visual functioning—visual acuity. This parameter was selected due to its ubiquity in the published cognitive aging literature. However, this meta-analysis does not rule out a potential moderation or mediation relationship between other measures of visual functioning, such as contrast sensitivity or visual field size (or measures of auditory sensory functioning), and differences in age-group comparisons of cognitive performance. Also, the present study consisted of a healthy aging sample. Thus, it could be that for, say, dementia patients that sensory decrements could moderate or mediate performance in higher-level cognition. Note that this is a particularly important possibility because the sample used in Lindenberger and Baltes (1994) was approximately 85 years of age, and the odds of dementia at this age is likely over over 30% (Herbert, Weuve, Scherr, & Evans, 2013). Nevertheless, we argue that the lack of a sensory-cognition association as measured by the most ubiquitously reported measure of sensory function, visual acuity, provides an important consideration to the discussion of general and specific effects associated with cognitive aging. Namely, based on a meta-analysis of 456 studies, we could not detect significant age-related differences in overall visual acuity, and we found that different categories of visual acuity did not moderate age-related differences in higher-level cognitive function.

The independence of age-related visual sensory and cognitive effects is surprising in light of the common cause hypothesis. One possibility is that older adults compensate for sensory deficits using top-down processes (e.g., Madden, 2007) and/or increased bottom-up chunking skill and normalization (Allen et al., 2002, 2011; see Stine-Morrow, Miller & Hertzog, 2006, for an information-processing model of compensation). At a neural level, compensation is reflected in age-related differences in task-related functional brain activation, and perhaps in brain structure as well (e.g., white matter integrity), linked to age-related differences in behavioral performance (Cabeza et al., 2002; Grady, 2012). The aspects of brain structure and function that define compensation, however, are not yet known entirely and appear to depend on many variables related to task demands and the overall level of task performance (Davis et al., 2008; Daselaar et al., 2013; Logan et al., 2002). Alternatively, it may be the case that, for the types of cognitive measures reviewed here, the variance associated with computational (encoding), decision-related, and response-related aspects of the task is more relevant for age-related differences than the variance associated with visual acuity. Finally, as noted earlier, it could be that sensory moderation or mediation of age-related differences in higher-level cognitive function may not occur into much later (e.g., in the mid 80s—as in Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994). Consequently, other factors in addition to sensory decrements are important for a thorough understanding of age-related differences in cognitive processing. While we in no way suggest that researchers should not screen for visual acuity, our meta-analysis results show that that such a situation would probably not bias estimates of age-related differences in higher cognitive processing, although not screening for visual acuity could exacerbate age-related differences in visual acuity.

Acknowledgments

We thank Paul Verhaeghen for meta-analysis advice.

We gratefully acknowledge funding for this research by NIH grant AG039684 (to David J. Madden) and by NIA Grant AG047334 (to Ilana J. Bennett).

Appendix A

Appendix Table 1

Common tasks representing cognitive domains

AttentionExecutive FunctionMemoryPerception
Asynchronous Dual-taskDrivingMetaphor CompletionBinocular Rivalry
Attentional BlinkFluencyNon-partisan lookupCircle Discrimination
Change DetectionImage GenerationObject NamingEmbedded Figures
Continuous Performance TaskIntelligencePaired AssociatesEmotion Identification
Error DetectionLetter-Number SequencingRepetition PrimingFace Discrimination
FlankerMental RotationRote RecallFace Encoding
Go/No GoN-backRote RecognitionFace/Location Matching
Letter IdentitySpanSemantic PrimingFragmented Picture Naming
Negative PrimingStroopSemantic-judgmentHaylings Test
Novelty OddballTower of (Hanoi, London, etc.)Sentence CompletionLetter Detection
Simultaneous Dual-taskTrailmaking BVocabularyLexical Decision
Stimulus SuffixVirtual MazeNational Adult Reading Test
TapWisconsin Card Sorting TestObject Tracking
Visual SearchWorking MemoryReading
Texture Discrimination
Visual Field Sensitivity

Appendix B

Appendix Table 2

Individual study citations with sample sizes and weighted age-related effect sizes

StudyNCognitive
Domain
Visual Acuity
Criteria
Weighted Avg. Fisher's
Z
Bartels et al. (2010)36AttentionUnreported8.55
Gamboz, Russo, & Fox (2000)48AttentionUnreported11.77
Greenhut-wertz & Manning (1995)32AttentionUnreported18.41
Malmstrom & LaVoie (2002)48AttentionUnreported40.24
Maylor & Lavie (1998)30AttentionUnreported26.72
Mienaltowski et al. (2011)31AttentionUnreported19.90
Plude & Doussard-Roosevelt (1989)24AttentionUnreported14.30
Salthouse (1992) – 2100AttentionUnreported25.12
Smyth & Shanks (2011) – 140AttentionUnreported18.39
Sorond et al. (2008)29AttentionUnreported10.22
Vallesi, Hasher, & Stuss (2010)40AttentionUnreported22.63
Verhaeghen, Cerella, & Basak (2006)62AttentionUnreported9.75
Bertsch et al. (2009)56AttentionUndisclosed22.90
Bock (2008) – 133AttentionUndisclosed13.92
Bock (2008) – 232AttentionUndisclosed11.49
Brache, Scialfa, & Hudson (2010)35AttentionUndisclosed15.10
Ceponiene et al. (2008)38AttentionUndisclosed16.31
Dywan et al. (2001)61AttentionUndisclosed35.08
Gamboz, Zamarian, & Cavallero (2010)135AttentionUndisclosed58.61
Georgiou-Karistianis et al. (2006)60AttentionUndisclosed−4.12
Guerriero, Adam, & Van Gerven (2012)55AttentionUndisclosed45.45
Hartley & Kieley (1995) – 134AttentionUndisclosed24.12
Hartley & Kieley (1995) – 240AttentionUndisclosed29.66
Hartley & Kieley (1995) – 334AttentionUndisclosed6.98
Hartley & Kieley (1995) – 432AttentionUndisclosed11.59
Hartley (2001)44AttentionUndisclosed21.81
James & Kooy (2011) – 136AttentionUndisclosed16.24
James & Kooy (2011) – 240AttentionUndisclosed18.06
Kennedy & Raz (2009)52AttentionUndisclosed16.56
Maylor, Birak, & Schlaghecken (2011)47AttentionUndisclosed26.03
McDowd & Oseas-Kreger (1991)40AttentionUndisclosed19.18
McLaughlin & Murtha (2010)50AttentionUndisclosed42.00
McLaughlin et al. (2010)60AttentionUndisclosed29.80
Müller-Oehring et al. (2007)37AttentionUndisclosed13.17
Neider & Kramer (2011) – 148AttentionUndisclosed20.02
Neider & Kramer (2011) – 224AttentionUndisclosed9.13
Prado, Stoffregen, & Duarte (2007)24AttentionUndisclosed13.42
Roux & Ceccaldi (2001) – 134AttentionUndisclosed15.95
Roux & Ceccaldi (2001) – 237AttentionUndisclosed16.63
Sander, Werkle-Bergner, & Lindenberger (2011) - 180AttentionUndisclosed98.68
Schmitz, Cheng, & De Rosa (2010)27AttentionUndisclosed13.46
Tucker et al. (2009)43AttentionUndisclosed3.78
Van Gerven & Murphy (2010)96AttentionUndisclosed33.08
Allen et al. (1993a) – 140AttentionSelf-reported19.34
Allen et al. (1993a) – 240AttentionSelf-reported20.62
Allen, Weber, & Madden (1994)40AttentionSelf-reported17.32
Lien, Gemperle, & Ruthruff (2011) – 132AttentionSelf-reported18.18
Lien, Gemperle, & Ruthruff (2011) – 230AttentionSelf-reported22.44
Maquestiaux et al. (2010)32AttentionSelf-reported22.28
Quigley et al. (2010)19AttentionSelf-reported7.38
Solbakk et al. (2008)25AttentionSelf-reported10.88
Strobach et al. (2012)19AttentionSelf-reported10.35
Titz, Behrendt, & Hasselhorn (2010)80AttentionSelf-reported32.32
Allen et al. (1998) – 140Attention20/4018.85
Allen et al. (1998) – 240Attention20/4028.18
Allen et al. (2009)36Attention20/4021.04
Allen, Weber, & May (1993) – 140Attention20/4017.40
Allen, Weber, & May (1993) – 240Attention20/4024.28
Atchley & Kramer (2000) – 124Attention20/4014.46
Atchley & Kramer (2000) – 224Attention20/4014.05
Batsakes & Fisk (2000)48Attention20/4060.40
Bojko et al. (2004)31Attention20/4019.65
Bucur et al. (2005)40Attention20/4031.07
Bucur, Madden, & Allen (2005)40Attention20/4023.19
Coeckelbergh et al. (2004)14Attention20/4015.77
Costello et al. (2010a) – 148Attention20/4028.85
Costello et al. (2010a) – 248Attention20/4031.94
Costello et al. (2010b)48Attention20/4028.82
Gottlob (2006)30Attention20/4014.85
Graham & Burke (2011)112Attention20/4048.14
Greenwood & Parasuraman (2004) – 132Attention20/4012.12
Hugenschmidt et al. (2009)52Attention20/4010.66
Jennings et al. (2011)98Attention20/4041.23
Kaneko (2004)14Attention20/406.47
Kramer et al. (1999) - 116Attention20/4011.56
Kramer et al. (1999) - 216Attention20/4010.80
Langley et al. (2007) - 164Attention20/4030.79
Langley et al. (2007) - 256Attention20/4027.26
Langley et al. (2008a) – 160Attention20/4045.01
Langley et al. (2008a) – 360Attention20/4055.84
Madden & Langley (2003) – 148Attention20/4033.93
Madden & Langley (2003) – 264Attention20/4024.53
Madden & Langley (2003) – 348Attention20/4028.91
Madden (1982) – 196Attention20/4029.58
Madden (1982) – 272Attention20/4027.94
Madden (1992a) – 148Attention20/4043.26
Madden (1992a) – 224Attention20/4018.85
Madden et al. (2002)24Attention20/4013.06
Madden et al. (2005) - 148Attention20/4049.16
Madden et al. (2005) - 248Attention20/4028.57
Madden et al. (2007)48Attention20/4037.93
Mani, Bedwell, & Miller (2005)32Attention20/4010.36
Nielson, Langenecker, & Garavan (2002) – 134Attention20/4014.45
Veiel, Storandt, & Abrams (2006) – 180Attention20/4041.29
Veiel, Storandt, & Abrams (2006) – 260Attention20/4029.87
Whiting et al. (2005) – 148Attention20/4035.37
Whiting et al. (2005) – 248Attention20/4034.14
Whiting et al. (2005) – 348Attention20/4030.05
Whiting, Madden, & Babcock (2007)48Attention20/4018.68
Colcombe et al. (2005)60Attention20/3029.54
Fisk & Rogers (1991) – 195Attention20/303.14
Fisk & Rogers (1991) – 285Attention20/3039.14
Hogan (2003)172Attention20/30149.98
Hoyer, Cerella, & Buchler (2011)36Attention20/3031.26
Humphrey & Kramer (1997)30Attention20/3021.72
Kotary & Hoyer (1995)40Attention20/3030.29
Kramer & Atchley (2000) - 148Attention20/3045.63
Kramer & Atchley (2000) - 224Attention20/3021.21
Kramer & Weber (1999) – 136Attention20/3029.37
Kramer & Weber (1999) – 232Attention20/3015.84
Kramer et al. (1996) - 129Attention20/3022.52
Kramer et al. (1996) - 234Attention20/3033.26
Ellis et al. (1996)24Attention20/2923.73
Burton-Danner, Owsley, & Jackson (2001)40Attention20/2533.12
Owsley, Burton-Danner, & Jackson (2000)40Attention20/2520.03
Hahn & Kramer (1995)20Attention20/2414.51
Georgiou-Karistianis et al. (2007)50Attention20/2018.15
Norman et al. (2007) – 116Attention20/206.73
Scialfa & Thomas (1994)40Attention20/18.933.23
Anderson et al. (2011a)80ExecutiveUnreported21.50
Andrés & Van der Linden (2000)95ExecutiveUnreported27.25
Artistico, Cervone, & Pezzuti (2003)60ExecutiveUnreported30.55
Ashendorf & McCaffrey (2008)44ExecutiveUnreported27.50
Ashley & Swick (2009)40ExecutiveUnreported8.01
Baudouin et al. (2009)100ExecutiveUnreported70.84
Beaunieux et al. (2009)100ExecutiveUnreported42.72
Bell, Buchner, & Mund (2008) – 391ExecutiveUnreported27.77
Bock (2005)24ExecutiveUnreported14.01
Bopp & Verhaeghen (2009) – 196ExecutiveUnreported57.04
Bopp & Verhaeghen (2009) – 250ExecutiveUnreported30.08
Bopp & Verhaeghen (2009) – 362ExecutiveUnreported38.86
Borella et al. (2011)79ExecutiveUnreported43.88
Brehmer, Westerberg, & Backman (2012)55ExecutiveUnreported29.58
Briggs, Raz, & Marks (1999)85ExecutiveUnreported30.12
Bugg et al. (2006)196ExecutiveUnreported119.70
Chen, Ma, & Pethtel (2011)184ExecutiveUnreported37.50
Copeland & Radvansky (2007) – 172ExecutiveUnreported39.87
Copeland & Radvansky (2007) – 272ExecutiveUnreported41.15
Copeland & Radvansky (2007) – 360ExecutiveUnreported27.49
Davis & Klebe (2001)23ExecutiveUnreported11.80
Denburg, Tranel, & Bechara (2005)80ExecutiveUnreported29.35
Dorbath, Haselhorn, & Titz (2011)176ExecutiveUnreported45.58
Doumas, Rapp, & Krampe (2009)18ExecutiveUnreported12.95
Eckert et al. (2010)42ExecutiveUnreported23.81
Einstein et al. (1997) – 164ExecutiveUnreported29.06
Einstein et al. (1997) – 2128ExecutiveUnreported41.45

Elwan et al. (1996)88ExecutiveUnreported57.60
Emery, Hale, & Myerson (2008)134ExecutiveUnreported49.40
Esposito et al. (1999)41ExecutiveUnreported−1.37
Fein, McGillivray, & Finn (2007)164ExecutiveUnreported50.67
Ferraro & Kellas (1992)48ExecutiveUnreported30.68
Foos & Goolkasian (2010)45ExecutiveUnreported16.02
Hale et al. (2011)388ExecutiveUnreported168.02
Hampshire et al. (2008)32ExecutiveUnreported8.75
Head et al. (2002)68ExecutiveUnreported14.66
Henninger, Madden, & Huettel (2010)112ExecutiveUnreported6.09
Kemper et al. (2010)197ExecutiveUnreported76.18
Krampe et al. (2010)44ExecutiveUnreported17.65

Kray, Lucenet, & Blaye (2010)85ExecutiveUnreported53.01
Lamar & Resnick (2004)43ExecutiveUnreported24.37
Lange & Verhaeghen (2009) – 248ExecutiveUnreported34.81
Lesch et al. (2011)101ExecutiveUnreported38.50
Löckenhoff, O'Donogue, & Dunning (2011)98ExecutiveUnreported23.41
Maintenant, Blaye, & Paour (2011)121ExecutiveUnreported49.96
Masunaga & Horn (2001)263ExecutiveUnreported34.78
Mata, Helversen, & Rieskamp (2010)100ExecutiveUnreported55.45
Mather & Schoeke (2011)86ExecutiveUnreported−22.12
Maury, Besse, & Martin (2010) – 272ExecutiveUnreported50.05
Mayr (2001) – 148ExecutiveUnreported29.87
Mayr (2001) – 272ExecutiveUnreported31.43
McAuley et al. (2010)79ExecutiveUnreported56.46
McDowd & Craik (1988)32ExecutiveUnreported24.11
Mell et al. (2009)28ExecutiveUnreported24.98
Miller & West (2010)95ExecutiveUnreported41.51
Morrow et al. (2001)182ExecutiveUnreported41.74
Perry et al. (2009)24ExecutiveUnreported15.60
Phillips, Kliegel, & Martin (2006)78ExecutiveUnreported36.33
Phillips, Smith, & Gilhooly (2002)96ExecutiveUnreported34.92
Radvansky et al. (2001) – 196ExecutiveUnreported22.30
Radvansky et al. (2001) – 2144ExecutiveUnreported71.23
Richmond et al. (2011) w/ additional data from Chein & Morrison (2010)35ExecutiveUnreported15.42
Rypma et al. (2001)12ExecutiveUnreported4.78
Salthouse (1992) – 1180ExecutiveUnreported79.52
Scheibe & Blanchard-Fields (2009)142ExecutiveUnreported92.70
Shafto (2010)72ExecutiveUnreported28.44
Shan et al. (2008)475ExecutiveUnreported95.98
Silver et al. (2011)134ExecutiveUnreported48.82
West (2004)28ExecutiveUnreported15.37
Wood et al. (2005)155ExecutiveUnreported27.43
Wood et al. (2011)121ExecutiveUnreported41.17
Bell, Buchner, & Mund (2008) – 1104ExecutiveUndisclosed44.84
Bo, Borza, & Seidler (2009)50ExecutiveUndisclosed30.10
Carp, Gmeindl, & Reuter-Lorenz (2010)41ExecutiveUndisclosed26.76
Chaparro et al. (2005)28ExecutiveUndisclosed11.64
Clapp et al. (2011)37ExecutiveUndisclosed9.80
Gamboz, Borella, & Brandimonte (2009)80ExecutiveUndisclosed25.69
Guerreiro & Van Gerven (2011)60ExecutiveUndisclosed33.35
Kemtes & Allen (2008)60ExecutiveUndisclosed16.16
Kieley & Hartley (1997) – 132ExecutiveUndisclosed9.97
Kieley & Hartley (1997) – 285ExecutiveUndisclosed19.50
Maury, Besse, & Martin (2010) – 150ExecutiveUndisclosed38.57
Morrone et al. (2010)60ExecutiveUndisclosed19.71
Mund, Bell, & Buchner (2010) – 196ExecutiveUndisclosed56.37
Mund, Bell, & Buchner (2010) – 2157ExecutiveUndisclosed72.21
Nagel et al. (2008)318ExecutiveUndisclosed234.18
Neider et al. (2011)36ExecutiveUndisclosed8.67
Ni, Kang, & Andersen (2010)16ExecutiveUndisclosed7.40
Peltz, Gratton, & Fabiani (2011)58ExecutiveUndisclosed42.48
Ridderinkhof et al. (2002) – 140ExecutiveUndisclosed21.54
Rose et al. (2009)48ExecutiveUndisclosed36.98
Rose et al. (2010)106ExecutiveUndisclosed79.11
Sambataro et al. (2010)57ExecutiveUndisclosed20.02
Zamarian et al. (2008)85ExecutiveUndisclosed28.53
Hartman, Bolton, & Fehnel (2001) – 1161ExecutiveSelf-reported49.94
Hartman, Bolton, & Fehnel (2001) – 296ExecutiveSelf-reported33.06
Hartman, Nielsen, & Stratton (2004)72ExecutiveSelf-reported43.45
Karayanidis et al. (2011)95ExecutiveSelf-reported42.61
Saimpont, Pozzo, & Papaxanthis (2009)39ExecutiveSelf-reported34.28
Touron & Hertzog (2009)124Executive20/5049.31
Allen et al. (1997) – 140Executive20/4019.48
Allen et al. (1997) – 248Executive20/4011.39
Basak & Verhaeghen (2011)55Executive20/4027.94
Feld & Sommers (2009)81Executive20/4041.96
Hertzog et al. (1996)201Executive20/40128.44
Jamieson & Rogers (2000)80Executive20/4048.41
Kirasic et al. (1996)477Executive20/4094.23
Kramer et al. (1994)62Executive20/4021.96
Langley et al. (2005)48Executive20/4023.01
Trick, Perl, & Sethi (2005) – 138Executive20/4027.71
Trick, Perl, & Sethi (2005) – 240Executive20/4023.38
Zanto, Toy, & Gazzaley (2010)43Executive20/4012.95

Brigman & Cherry (2002)40Executive20/3019.51
Cherry & Park (1993)194Executive20/3070.89
Reese & Cherry (2002)128Executive20/3040.46
Touron, Hoyer, & Cerella (2004)60Executive20/3055.18
Verhaeghen & Hoyer (2007)48Executive20/3027.22
Cansino et al. (2011)50Executive20/2019.11
Risse & Kliegle (2011)80Executive20/2017.13
Aizpurua, Garcia-Bajos, & Migueles (2009)68MemoryUnreported27.99
Aizpurua, Garcia-Bajos, & Migueles (2011) – 165MemoryUnreported28.36
Aizpurua, Garcia-Bajos, & Migueles (2011) – 267MemoryUnreported21.80
Anderson et al. (2011) – 160MemoryUnreported31.74
Anderson et al. (2011) – 263MemoryUnreported33.83
Badham & Maylor (2011)108MemoryUnreported67.70
Bayer et al. (2011)40MemoryUnreported4.52
Bell, Buchner, & Mund (2008) – 299MemoryUnreported50.05
Benjamin (2011)79MemoryUnreported18.22
Bryan & Luszcz (1996)72MemoryUnreported34.46
Buchler et al. (2011)60MemoryUnreported8.95
Cabeza et al. (2004)40MemoryUnreported11.80
Charness et al. (2001) – 172MemoryUnreported70.78
Charness et al. (2001) – 248MemoryUnreported20.58
Craik & Schloerscheidt (2011) – 232MemoryUnreported23.21
Denney & Larsen (1994)80MemoryUnreported29.45
Dew & Giovanello (2010a) – 148MemoryUnreported23.18
Dew & Giovanello (2010a) – 260MemoryUnreported44.40
Dew & Giovanello (2010b) – 264MemoryUnreported36.31
Doose & Feyereisen (2001)59MemoryUnreported39.53
Emery & Hess (2011)101MemoryUnreported16.22
Ford et al. (2001)26MemoryUnreported8.53
Frings, Mader, & Hull (2010)17MemoryUnreported12.14
Gardner, Hill, Was (2011)92MemoryUnreported42.06
Glahn et al. (1997)181MemoryUnreported53.39
Grady et al. (2002)44MemoryUnreported27.39
Halamish, McGillivray, & Castel (2011)40MemoryUnreported15.89
Hamami, Serbun, & Gutchess (2011) – 254MemoryUnreported21.49
Hanna-Pladdy & Choi (2010)135MemoryUnreported31.66
Henkel & Rajaram (2011)192MemoryUnreported61.81
Hertzog & Touron (2011)152MemoryUnreported121.83
Jager, Mecklinger, & Kliegel (2010)40MemoryUnreported21.76
Joy, Kaplan, & Fein (2004)950MemoryUnreported467.05
Kave, Knafo, & Gilboa (2010)1145MemoryUnreported104.58
Kim & Giovanello (2011) – 224MemoryUnreported13.63
Kitzan et al. (1999)88MemoryUnreported39.67
Kornell et al. (2010)112MemoryUnreported44.11
Li, Nilsson, & Wu (2004)98MemoryUnreported37.74
Luo, Hendriks & Craik (2007) – 164MemoryUnreported23.93
Luo, Hendriks & Craik (2007) – 252MemoryUnreported13.23
Luo, Hendriks & Craik (2007) – 336MemoryUnreported27.80
Luo, Hendriks & Craik (2007) – 464MemoryUnreported17.45
Maddox et al. (2011) – 160MemoryUnreported44.87
Maddox et al. (2011) – 278MemoryUnreported39.09
McGillivray & Castel (2010)50MemoryUnreported20.63
McGillivray & Castel (2011)52MemoryUnreported27.18
Moffat et al. (2007)68MemoryUnreported39.55
Nashiro & Mather (2011)48MemoryUnreported17.38
Naveh-Benjamin & Craik (1995)50MemoryUnreported9.48
Nemeth & Janacsek (2010)129MemoryUnreported65.66
Ostreicher et al. (2010)32MemoryUnreported12.04
Overman & Becker (2009)151MemoryUnreported−42.60

Rosa & Gutchess (2011)90MemoryUnreported38.81
Simon, Howard Jr., & Howard (2010)30MemoryUnreported16.22
Smith (2011) – 1256MemoryUnreported62.99
Smith (2011) – 270MemoryUnreported24.44
Stern et al. (2008) – 168MemoryUnreported25.19
Stern et al. (2008) – 245MemoryUnreported17.27
Toth, Daniels, & Solinger (2011)72MemoryUnreported19.50
Troyer et al. (2011)40MemoryUnreported23.38
Tse, Balota, & Roediger (2010) – 196MemoryUnreported27.35
Tse, Balota, & Roediger (2010) – 244MemoryUnreported12.36
Wang & Dew (2010)112MemoryUnreported51.52
West, Welch, & Thorn (2001)218MemoryUnreported128.68
Wiggs & Martin (1994) – 132MemoryUnreported12.12
Wiggs & Martin (1994) – 264MemoryUnreported22.15
Bender, Naveh-Benjamin, & Raz (2010)278MemoryUndisclosed62.13
Bergerbest et al. (2009)30MemoryUndisclosed12.13
Craik & Schloerscheidt (2011) – 150MemoryUndisclosed26.94
Craik & Schloerscheidt (2011) – 264MemoryUndisclosed10.98
Fernandes et al. (2008)95MemoryUndisclosed45.01
Gaesser et al. (2011) – 132MemoryUndisclosed20.32
Gaesser et al. (2011) – 230MemoryUndisclosed14.16
Glass (2007)345MemoryUndisclosed240.43
Gopie, Craik, & Hasher (2010) – 140MemoryUndisclosed13.88
Gopie, Craik, & Hasher (2010) – 240MemoryUndisclosed11.69
Hartley et al. (2011) – 148MemoryUndisclosed20.98
Hartley et al. (2011) – 246MemoryUndisclosed16.24
Kemps & Newson (2006)96MemoryUndisclosed45.27
Lin et al. (2010)60MemoryUndisclosed8.59
Lövdén et al. (2005)32MemoryUndisclosed36.13
Murray, Muscatell, & Kensinger (2011) – 148MemoryUndisclosed26.03
Murray, Muscatell, & Kensinger (2011) – 278MemoryUndisclosed54.06
Murray, Muscatell, & Kensinger (2011) – 340MemoryUndisclosed11.45
Shih, Meadmore, & Liversedge (2012)90MemoryUndisclosed29.41
Skinner & Fernandes (2009) – 130MemoryUndisclosed11.73
Skinner & Fernandes (2009) – 232MemoryUndisclosed7.74
Vakil & Agmon-Askenazi (1997)50MemoryUndisclosed29.13
Viggiano et al. (2010)30MemoryUndisclosed22.49
Aizpurua & Koutstaal (2010)71MemorySelf-reported27.87
Feng et al. (2011)85MemorySelf-reported7.63
Hamami, Serbun, & Gutchess (2011) – 164MemorySelf-reported22.34
Rémy, Taconnat, & Isingrini (2008)60MemorySelf-reported38.58
Stine-morrow et al. (2006)73MemorySelf-reported14.60
Tun et al. (1992)50MemorySelf-reported25.47
Hertzog et al. (2007) – 1103Memory20/5033.71
Hertzog et al. (2007) – 284Memory20/5030.48
Hertzog et al. (2007) – 386Memory20/504.70
Touron, Hertzog, & Frank (2011) – 140Memory20/5014.34
Allen et al. (2002b)80Memory20/4026.77
Allen et al. (2011) – 140Memory20/4028.37
Allen et al. (2011) – 2120Memory20/4069.53
Bowles (1994)64Memory20/4053.84
Fisk et al. (1995)201Memory20/40172.35
Fisk et al. (1997) – 1174Memory20/40220.04
Fisk et al. (1997) – 248Memory20/4041.89
Jenkins et al. (2000)32Memory20/4025.52
Langley et al. (2008b) – 172Memory20/4019.25
Langley et al. (2008b) – 268Memory20/4022.16
Langley et al. (2008b) – 364Memory20/4017.72
Lawson, Guo, & Jiang (2007)28Memory20/4015.28
Rogers & Gilbert (1997) - 132Memory20/4020.68
Rogers & Gilbert (1997) - 232Memory20/4019.80
Rogers & Gilbert (1997) - 332Memory20/4020.36
Rogers & Gilbert (1997) - 432Memory20/4017.62


Rutledge, Hancock, & Walker (1997)93Memory20/4032.37
Cerella et al. (2006)98Memory20/3048.05
Cherry & Jones (1999) – 1144Memory20/3058.92
Cherry & Jones (1999) – 2144Memory20/3070.19
Cherry & LeCompte (1999)96Memory20/3018.63
Cherry & St. Pierre (1998)64Memory20/3024.86
Cherry et al. (2003) – 196Memory20/3075.94
Cherry et al. (2003) – 296Memory20/3081.94
Karpel, Hoyer, & Toglia (2001)122Memory20/3044.99
Park et al. (1990) – 184Memory20/3020.92
Park et al. (1990) – 2128Memory20/3028.05
Smith et al. (1998) - 176Memory20/3055.84
Smith et al. (1998) - 248Memory20/3026.04
Bowles & Poon (1981)43PerceptionUnreported20.78
Cohen & Faulkner (1983)24PerceptionUnreported9.29
Elliott et al. (2007)20PerceptionUnreported5.97
Grady et al. (1994)32PerceptionUnreported21.46
Hildebrandt et al. (2011)448PerceptionUnreported26.76
Hunter, Phillips, & MacPherson (2010) – 150PerceptionUnreported19.45
Hunter, Phillips, & MacPherson (2010) – 240PerceptionUnreported13.83
Kalisch et al. (2012)81PerceptionUnreported38.28
Krendl & Ambady (2010) – 178PerceptionUnreported48.26
Krendl & Ambady (2010) – 280PerceptionUnreported37.08
Lange & Verhaeghen (2009) – 148PerceptionUnreported45.44
McLellan, Marcos, & Burns (2001)38PerceptionUnreported13.45
Mikels et al. (2005)40PerceptionUnreported15.62
Mill et al. (2009)607PerceptionUnreported245.57
Park et al. (2010)38PerceptionUnreported17.19
Stine-Morrow et al. (2001)243PerceptionUnreported96.94
Westbury & Titone (2011)68PerceptionUnreported23.08
Allen, Madden, & Crozier (1991)48PerceptionUndisclosed38.13
Andersen et al. (2010) – 118PerceptionUndisclosed14.37
Andersen et al. (2010) – 316PerceptionUndisclosed0.14
Bannerman, Regener, & Sahraie (2011)60PerceptionUndisclosed23.87
Burke, White, & Diaz (1987)64PerceptionUndisclosed25.45
Caplan et al. (2011)200PerceptionUndisclosed56.57
Chaby, Narme, & George (2011)66PerceptionUndisclosed36.33
Deiber et al. (2010)56PerceptionUndisclosed25.77
Del Viva & Agostini (2006)32PerceptionUndisclosed35.54
Halpern (1984)40PerceptionUndisclosed38.81
Kadota & Gomi (2010)32PerceptionUndisclosed24.75
Kennedy et al. (2009)169PerceptionUndisclosed85.83
Klein et al. (2000)36PerceptionUndisclosed23.93
Kolarik, Margrain, & Freeman (2010)39PerceptionUndisclosed8.72
Madden (1992b)108PerceptionUndisclosed50.38
O'Connor, Margrain, & Freeman (2010) – 139PerceptionUndisclosed10.11
Orgeta (2010)80PerceptionUndisclosed25.73
Owsley, Sekuler, & Boldt (1981)27PerceptionUndisclosed27.24
Ridderinkhof & Wijnen (2011)40PerceptionUndisclosed35.46
Slessor et al. (2010)59PerceptionUndisclosed60.72
Spaniol et al. (2011)53PerceptionUndisclosed16.66
Speranza, Moraglia, & Schneider (2001) – 122PerceptionUndisclosed6.35
Speranza, Moraglia, & Schneider (2001) – 222PerceptionUndisclosed6.36
Speranza, Moraglia, & Schneider (2001) – 322PerceptionUndisclosed17.97
Speranza, Moraglia, & Schneider (2001) – 422PerceptionUndisclosed1.75
Werheid, Gruno, & Kathman et al. (2010) – 140PerceptionUndisclosed14.89
Werheid, Gruno, & Kathman et al. (2010) – 240PerceptionUndisclosed16.83
Winneke & Phillips (2011)34PerceptionUndisclosed6.33
Allen et al. (1993b) – 140PerceptionSelf-reported28.14
Allen et al. (1993b) – 240PerceptionSelf-reported26.98
Allen et al. (1993b) – 340PerceptionSelf-reported16.88
Madden (1988)48PerceptionSelf-reported36.64
Maguinness et al. (2011)41PerceptionSelf-reported37.43
Robert & Mathey (2007)54PerceptionSelf-reported13.45
Allen et al. (2002a) – 167Perception20/4030.70
Allen et al. (2002a) – 284Perception20/4027.23
Allen et al. (2002a) – 340Perception20/4017.88
Allen et al. (2004)193Perception20/4068.19
Gottlob et al. (2007)40Perception20/408.60
Hugenschmidt, Mozolic, & Laurienti (2009)41Perception20/4028.79
Tye-Murray et al. (2008)86Perception20/4035.28
Tye-Murray et al. (2010)106Perception20/4037.61
Scialfa et al. (1999)36Perception20/3315.88
Clancy-Dollinger (1995)24Perception20/3018.58
Garnham & Sloper (2006)60Perception20/3022.40
Johnson, Adams, & Lewis (1989)62Perception20/3039.22
Klistorner & Graham (2001)100Perception20/305.06
Kurylo (2006)26Perception20/3018.20
McKendrick, Weymouth, & Battista (2010)43Perception20/3011.53
Nguyen-Tri, Overbury, & Faubert (2003)102Perception20/3031.84
Redmond et al. (2010)68Perception20/307.02
Ross, Clarke, & Bron (1985)70Perception20/3045.89
Ruffman, Sullivan, & Dittrich (2009) - 160Perception20/3026.10
Ruffman, Sullivan, & Dittrich (2009) - 279Perception20/3026.08
Ryan, Murray, & Ruffman (2010)80Perception20/3025.40
Scialfa & Hamaluk (2001)20Perception20/3012.07
Sullivan, Ruffman, & Hutton (2007) – 160Perception20/3019.58
Sullivan, Ruffman, & Hutton (2007) – 254Perception20/3022.40
Elliott & Werner (2010)26Perception20/2513.59
Elliott et al. (2009)20Perception20/256.36
Grunwald et al. (1993)33Perception20/2519.62
Habak, Wilkinson, & Wilson (2009)36Perception20/257.45
Karas & McKendrick (2009)35Perception20/2510.73
McKendrick et al. (2007)28Perception20/2523.94
Li et al. (2012)38Perception20/2421.50
Kennedy, Tripathy, & Barrett (2009)22Perception20/2010.70
Rayner et al. (2006)32Perception20/2010.16
Rayner et al. (2009) - 148Perception20/2011.95
Rayner et al. (2009) - 224Perception20/2015.62
Rayner et al. (2011)32Perception20/2012.97
Thompson, Garcia, & Malloy (2007)80Perception20/2045.85
Wilson et al. (2011)30Perception20/2013.11
Malania et al. (2011)19Perception20/159.40

Contributor Information

James R. Houston, Department of Psychology, University of Akron.

Ilana J. Bennett, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California, Irvine.

Philip A. Allen, Department of Psychology, University of Akron.

David J. Madden, Brain Imaging and Analysis Center, Duke University Medical Center.

REFERENCES (entries with asterisks are cited in the text of this paper)

* Aizpurua A, Garcia-Bajos E, Migueles M. Memory for actions of an event: Older and younger adults compared. The Journal of General Psychology. 2009;136(4):428–441. [PubMed]
Aizpurua A, Garcia-Bajos E, Migueles M. False recognition and source attribution for actions of an emotional event in older and younger adults. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(3):310–329. [PubMed]
Aizpurua A, Koutstaal W. Aging and flexible remembering: Contributions of conceptual span, fluid intelligence, and frontal functioning. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(1):193–207. [PubMed]
* Allen PA, Bucur B, Grabbe J, Work T, Madden DJ. Influence of encoding difficulty, word frequency, and phonological regularity on age differences in word naming. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(3):261–292. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Groth KE, Weber TA, Madden DJ. Influence of response selection and noise similarity on age differences in the redundancy gain. Journal of Gerontology. 1993;48(4):189–198. [PubMed]
* Allen PA, Hall RJ, Druley JA, Smith AF, Sanders RE, Murphy MD. How shared are age-related influences on cognitive and noncognitive variables? Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(3):532–549. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Kaufman M, Smith AF, Propper RE. A molar entropy model of age differences in spatial memory. Psychology and Aging. 1998;13(3):501. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Madden DJ, Crozier LC. Adult age differences in letter-level and word-level processing. Psychology and Aging. 1991;6(2):261. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Madden DJ, Weber TA, Groth KE. Influence of age and processing stage on visual word recognition. Psychology and Aging. 1993;8(2):274–282. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Murphy MD, Kaufman M, Groth KE, Begovic A. Age differences in central (semantic) and peripheral processing: The importance of considering both response times and errors. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2004;59(5):210–219. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Ruthruff E, Elicker JD, Lien M-C. Multisession, dual-task psychological refractory period practice benefits older and younger adults equally. Experimental Aging Research. 2009;35(4):369–399. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Sliwinski M, Bowie T. Differential age effects in semantic and episodic memory, Part II: Slope and intercept analyses. Experimental Aging Research. 2002;28(2):111–142. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Sliwinski M, Bowie T, Madden DJ. Differential age effects in semantic and episodic memory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2002;57(2):173–186. [PubMed]
* Allen PA, Smith AF, Groth KE, Pickle JL, Grabbe JW, Madden DJ. Differential age effects for case and hue mixing in visual word recognition. Psychology and Aging. 2002;17(4):622–635. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Smith AF, Jerge KA, Vires-Collins H. Age differences in mental multiplication: Evidence for peripheral but not central decrements. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1997;52(2):81–90. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Smith AF, Lien M-C, Kaut KP, Canfield A. A multistream model of visual word recognition. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics. 2009;71(2):281–296. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Weber TA, Madden DJ. Adult age differences in attention: Filtering or selection? Journal of Gerontology. 1994;49(5):213–222. [PubMed]
Allen PA, Weber TA, May N. Age differences in letter and color matching: Selective attention or internal noise? Journal of Gerontology. 1993;48(2):P69–P77. [PubMed]
Andersen GJ, Ni R, Bower JD, Watanabe T. Perceptual learning, aging, and improved visual performance in early stages of visual processing. Journal of Vision. 2010;10(13):4–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Anderson BA, Jacoby LL, Thomas RC, Balota DA. The effects of age and divided attention on spontaneous recognition. Memory & Cognition. 2011;39(4):725–735. [PubMed]
Anderson MC, Reinholz J, Kuhl BA, Mayr U. Intentional suppression of unwanted memories grows more difficult as we age. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):397–405. [PubMed]
Andrés P, Van der Linden M. Age-related differences in supervisory attentional system functions. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2000;55(6):373–380. [PubMed]
* Anstey KJ, Lord SR, Williams P. Strength in the lower limbs, visual contrast sensitivity, and simple reaction time predict cognition in older women. Psychology and Aging. 1997;12(1):137. [PubMed]
* Anstey KJ, Luszcz MA, Sanchez L. A reevaluation of the common factor theory of shared variance among age, sensory function, and cognitive function in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001;56(1):3–11. [PubMed]
* Anstey KJ, Smith GA. Interrelationships among biological markers of aging, health, activity, acculturation, and cognitive performance in late adulthood. Psychology and Aging. 1999;14(4):605. [PubMed]
Artistico D, Cervone D, Pezzuti L. Perceived self-efficacy and everyday problem solving among young and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2003;18(1):68–79. [PubMed]
Ashendorf L, McCaffrey RJ. Exploring age-related decline on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2008;22(2):262–272. [PubMed]
Ashley V, Swick D. Consequences of emotional stimuli: Age differences on pure and mixed blocks of the emotional Stroop. Behavioral and Brain Functions. 2009;5(1):14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Atchley P, Kramer AF. Age-related changes in the control of attention in depth. Psychology and Aging. 2000;15(1):78–87. [PubMed]
Badham SP, Maylor EA. Age-related associative deficits are absent with nonwords. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):689–694. [PubMed]
* Baena E, Allen PA, Kaut KP, Hall RJ. On age differences in prefrontal function: The importance of emotional/cognitive integration. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(1):319–333. [PubMed]
* Baltes PB, Lindenberger U. Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive functions across the adult life span: A new window to the study of cognitive aging? Psychology and Aging. 1997;12(1):12. [PubMed]
Bannerman RL, Regener P, Sahraie A. Binocular rivalry: A window into emotional processing in aging. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):372–380. [PubMed]
Bartels C, Wegrzyn M, Wiedl A, Ackermann V, Ehrenreich H. Practice effects in healthy adults: A longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing. BMC Neuroscience. 2010;11(1):118. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Basak C, Verhaeghen P. Aging and switching the focus of attention in working memory: Age differences in item availability but not in item accessibility. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66(5):519–526. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Batsakes PJ, Fisk AD. Age-related differences in dual-task visual search: Are performance gains retained? The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2000;55(6):332–342. [PubMed]
Baudouin A, Clarys D, Vanneste S, Isingrini M. Executive functioning and processing speed in age-related differences in memory: Contribution of a coding task. Brain and Cognition. 2009;71(3):240–245. [PubMed]
Bayer ZC, Hernandez RJ, Morris AM, Salomonczyk D, Pirogovsky E, Gilbert PE. Age-related source memory deficits persist despite superior item memory. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(4):473–480. [PubMed]
Beaunieux H, Hubert V, Pitel AL, Desgranges B, Eustache F. Episodic memory deficits slow down the dynamics of cognitive procedural learning in normal ageing. Memory. 2009;17(2):197–207. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Bell R, Buchner A, Mund I. Age-related differences in irrelevant-speech effects. Psychology and Aging. 2008;23(2):377–391. [PubMed]
Bender AR, Naveh-Benjamin M, Raz N. Associative deficit in recognition memory in a lifespan sample of healthy adults. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):940–948. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Benjamin AS. Age differences in the use of beneficial and misleading cues in recall: With a comment on the measurement of between-group differences in accuracy. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(1):63–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Bergerbest D, Gabrieli JDE, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Kim H, Stebbins GT, Bennett DA, Fleischman DA. Age-associated reduction of asymmetry in prefrontal function and preservation of conceptual repetition priming. NeuroImage. 2009;45(1):237–246. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Berry AS, Zanto TP, Clapp WC, Hardy JL, Delahunt PB, Mahncke HW, Gazzaley A. The Influence of Perceptual Training on Working Memory in Older Adults. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(7):e11537. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Bertone A, Bettinelli L, Faubert J. The impact of blurred vision on cognitive assessment. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2007;29(5):467–476. [PubMed]
Bertsch K, Hagemann D, Hermes M, Walter C, Khan R, Naumann E. Resting cerebral blood flow, attention, and aging. Brain Research. 2009;1267:77–88. [PubMed]
Bock O. Components of sensorimotor adaptation in young and elderly subjects. Experimental Brain Research. 2005;160(2):259–263. [PubMed]
Bock O. Dual-task costs while walking increase in old age for some, but not for other tasks: An experimental study of healthy young and elderly persons. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 2008;5:27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Bo J, Borza V, Seidler RD. Age-related declines in visuospatial working memory correlate with deficits in explicit motor sequence learning. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2009;102(5):2744–2754. [PubMed]
Bojko A, Kramer AF, Peterson MS. Age equivalence in switch costs for prosaccade and antisaccade tasks. Psychology and Aging. 2004;19(1):226–234. [PubMed]
Bopp KL, Verhaeghen P. Working memory and aging: Separating the effects of content and context. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(4):968–980. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Borella E, Ludwig C, Dirk J, de Ribaupierre A. The influence of time of testing on interference, working memory, processing speed, and vocabulary: Age differences in adulthood. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(1):76–107. [PubMed]
Bowles NL. Age and rate of activation in semantic memory. Psychology and Aging. 1994;9(3):414–429. [PubMed]
Bowles NL, Poon LW. The effect of age on speed of lexical access. Experimental Aging Research. 1981;7(4):417–425. [PubMed]
* Brabyn J, Schneck M, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Lott L. The Smith-Kettlewell Institute (SKI) longitudinal study of vision function and its impact among the elderly: An overview. Optometry & Vision Science. 2001;78(5):264–269. [PubMed]
Brache K, Scialfa C, Hudson C. Aging and vigilance: Who has the inhibition deficit? Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(2):140–152. [PubMed]
Brehmer Y, Westerberg H, Bäckman L. Working-memory training in younger and older adults: Training gains, transfer, and maintenance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012;6:63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Briggs SD, Raz N, Marks W. Age-related deficits in generation and manipulation of mental images: I: The role of sensorimotor speed and working memory. Psychology and Aging. 1999;14(3):427–435. [PubMed]
Brigman S, Cherry KE. Age and skilled performance: Contributions of working memory and processing speed. Brain and Cognition. 2002;50(2):242–256. [PubMed]
Bryan J, Luszcz MA. Speed of information processing as a mediator between age and free-recall performance. Psychology and Aging. 1996;11(1):3. [PubMed]
Buchler NG, Faunce P, Light LL, Gottfredson N, Reder LM. Effects of repetition on associative recognition in young and older adults: Item and associative strengthening. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):111–126. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Bucur B, Allen PA, Sanders RE, Ruthruff E, Murphy MD. Redundancy gain and coactivation in bimodal detection: Evidence for the preservation of coactive processing in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2005;60(5):279–282. [PubMed]
Bucur B, Madden DJ, Allen PA. Age-related differences in the processing of redundant visual dimensions. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(3):435–446. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Bugg JM, Zook NA, DeLosh EL, Davalos DB, Davis HP. Age differences in fluid intelligence: Contributions of general slowing and frontal decline. Brain and Cognition. 2006;62(1):9–16. [PubMed]
Burke DM, White H, Diaz DL. Semantic priming in young and older adults: Evidence for age constancy in automatic and attentional processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. 1987;13(1):79–88. [PubMed]
Burton-Danner, Owsley Cynthia, Greg K. Aging and feature search: The effect of search area. Experimental Aging Research. 2001;27(1):1–18. [PubMed]
* Cabeza R, Anderson ND, Locantore JK, McIntosh AR. Aging gracefully: Compensatory brain activity in high-performing older adults. Neuroimage. 2002;17:1394–1402. [PubMed]
Cabeza R, Daselaar SM, Dolcos F, Prince SE, Budde M, Nyberg L. Task-independent and task-specific age effects on brain activity during working memory, visual attention and episodic retrieval. Cerebral Cortex. 2004;14(4):364–375. [PubMed]
Cansino S, Guzzon D, Martinelli M, Barollo M, Casco C. Effects of aging on interference control in selective attention and working memory. Memory & Cognition. 2011;39(8):1409–1422. [PubMed]
Caplan D, Dede G, Waters G, Michaud J, Tripodis Y. Effects of age, speed of processing, and working memory on comprehension of sentences with relative clauses. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):439–450. [PubMed]
Carp J, Gmeindl L, Reuter-Lorenz PA. Age differences in the neural representation of working memory revealed by multi-voxel pattern analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2010;4:217. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Ceponiene R, Westerfield M, Torki M, Townsend J. Modality-specificity of sensory aging in vision and audition: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research. 2008;1215:53–68. [PubMed]
Cerella J, Onyper SV, Hoyer WJ. The associative-memory basis of cognitive skill learning: Adult age differences. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(3):483–498. [PubMed]
Chaby L, Narme P, George N. Older adults’ configural processing of faces: Role of second-order information. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):71–79. [PubMed]
Chaparro A, Wood JM, Carberry T. Effects of age and auditory and visual dual tasks on closed-road driving performance. Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry. 2005;82(8):747–754. [PubMed]
Charness N, Kelley CL, Bosman EA, Mottram M. Word-processing training and retraining: Effects of adult age, experience, and interface. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):110–127. [PubMed]
Chein JM, Morrison AB. Expanding the mind’s workspace: Training and transfer effects with a complex working memory span task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2010;17(2):193–199. [PubMed]
Chen Y, Ma X, Pethtel O. Age differences in trade-off decisions: Older adults prefer choice deferral. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):269–273. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Cherry KE, Dokey DK, Reese CM, Brigman S. Pictorial illustrations enhance memory for sentences in younger and older adults. Experimental Aging Research. 2003;29(3):353–370. [PubMed]
Cherry KE, Jones MW. Age-related differences in spatial memory: Effects of structural and organizational context. The Journal of General Psychology. 1999;126(1):53–73. [PubMed]
Cherry KE, LeCompte DC. Age and individual differences influence prospective memory. Psychology and Aging. 1999;14(1):60–76. [PubMed]
Cherry KE, Park DC, Frieske DA, Rowley RL. The effect of verbal elaborations on memory in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition. 1993;21(6):725–738. [PubMed]
Cherry KE, St Pierre C. Age-related differences in pictorial implicit memory: Role of perceptual and conceptual processes. Experimental Aging Research. 1998;24(1):53–62. [PubMed]
Clancy-Dollinger SM. Effect of degraded viewing on visual asymmetry patterns in older adults. Experimental Aging Research. 1995;21(1):47–57. [PubMed]
Clapp WC, Rubens MT, Sabharwal J, Gazzaley A. Deficit in switching between functional brain networks underlies the impact of multitasking on working memory in older adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108(17):7212–7217. [PubMed]
Coeckelbergh TRM, Cornelissen FW, Brouwer WH, Kooijman AC. Age-related changes in the functional visual field: Further evidence for an inverse Age × Eccentricity effect. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2004;59(1):11–18. [PubMed]
Cohen G, Faulkner D. Age differences in performance on two information-processing tasks: Strategy selection and processing efficiency. Journal of Gerontology. 1983;38(4):447–454. [PubMed]
* Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2003.
Colcombe SJ, Kramer AF, Erickson KI, Scalf P. The implications of cortical recruitment and brain morphology for individual differences in inhibitory function in aging humans. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(3):363–375. [PubMed]
Copeland DE, Radvansky GA. Aging and integrating spatial mental models. Psychology and Aging. 2007;22(3):569–579. [PubMed]
Costello MC, Madden DJ, Mitroff SR, Whiting WL. Age-related decline of visual processing components in change detection. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(2):356–368. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Costello MC, Madden DJ, Shepler AM, Mitroff SR, Leber AB. Age-related preservation of top-down control over distraction in visual search. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(3):249–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Craik FIM, Schloerscheidt AM. Age-related differences in recognition memory: Effects of materials and context change. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):671–677. [PubMed]
* Daselaar SM, Iyengar V, Davis SW, Eklund K, Hayes SM, Cabeza RE. Less wiring, more firing: Low-performing older adults compensate for impaired white matter with greater neural activity. Cerebral Cortex. 2013 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Davis SW, Dennis NA, Daselaar SM, Fleck MS, Cabeza R. Que PASA? The posterior-anterior shift in aging. Cerebral Cortex. 2008;18:1201–1209. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Davis HP, Klebe KJ. A longitudinal study of the performance of the elderly and young on the Tower of Hanoi puzzle and Rey recall. Brain and Cognition. 2001;46(1–2):95–99. [PubMed]
Deiber M-P, Rodriguez C, Jaques D, Missonnier P, Emch J, Millet P, Ibañez V. Aging effects on selective attention-related electroencephalographic patterns during face encoding. Neuroscience. 2010;171(1):173–186. [PubMed]
Del Viva MM, Agostini R. Visual spatial integration in the elderly. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2007;48(6):2940–2946. [PubMed]
Denburg NL, Tranel D, Bechara A. The ability to decide advantageously declines prematurely in some normal older persons. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(7):1099–1106. [PubMed]
Denney NW, Larsen JE. Aging and episodic memory: Are elderly adults less likely to make connections between target and contextual information? Journal of Gerontology. 1994;49(6):270–275. [PubMed]
Dew ITZ, Giovanello KS. Differential age effects for implicit and explicit conceptual associative memory. Psychology and Aging. 2010a;25(4):911–921. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Dew ITZ, Giovanello KS. The status of rapid response learning in aging. Psychology and Aging. 2010b;25(4):898–910. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Doose G, Feyereisen P. Task specificity in age-related slowing: Word production versus conceptual comparison. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001;56(2):85–87. [PubMed]
Dorbath L, Hasselhorn M, Titz C. Aging and executive functioning: A training study on focus-switching. Frontiers in Psychology. 2011;2:257. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Doumas M, Rapp MA, Krampe RT. Working Memory and Postural Control: Adult Age Differences in Potential for Improvement, Task Priority, and Dual Tasking. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2009;64B(2):193–201. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Dywan J, Segalowitz SJ, Webster L, Hendry K, Harding J. Event-related potential evidence for age-related differences in attentional allocation during a source monitoring task. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2001;19(1):99–120. [PubMed]
Eckert MA, Keren NI, Roberts DR, Calhoun VD, Harris KC. Age-related changes in processing speed: Unique contributions of cerebellar and prefrontal cortex. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2010;4:10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Einstein GO, Smith RE, McDaniel MA, Shaw P. Aging and prospective memory: The influence of increased task demands at encoding and retrieval. Psychology and Aging. 1997;12(3):479. [PubMed]
* Elliott D, Whitaker D, MacVeigh D. Neural contribution to spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity decline in healthy ageing eyes. Vision Research. 1990;30(4):541–547. [PubMed]
Elliott SL, Choi SS, Doble N, Hardy JL, Evans JW, Werner JS. Role of high-order aberrations in senescent changes in spatial vision. Journal of Vision. 2009;9(2):24.1–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Elliott SL, Hardy JL, Webster MA, Werner JS. Aging and blur adaptation. Journal of Vision. 2007;7(6):8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Elliott SL, Werner JS. Age-related changes in contrast gain related to the M and P pathways. Journal of Vision. 2010;10(4):4.1–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Ellis RD, Goldberg JH, Detweiler MC. Predicting age-related differences in visual information processing using a two-stage queuing model. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1996;51(3):155–165. [PubMed]
Elwan O, Hassan AA, Abdel Naseer M, Fahmy M, Elwan F, Abel Kader A, Mahfouz M. Brain aging in normal Egyptians: Neuropsychological, electrophysiological and cranial tomographic assessment. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 1996;136(1–2):73–80. [PubMed]
Emery L, Hale S, Myerson J. Age differences in proactive interference, working memory, and abstract reasoning. Psychology and Aging. 2008;23(3):634–645. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Emery L, Hess TM. Cognitive consequences of expressive regulation in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):388–396. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Esposito G, Kirkby BS, Van Horn JD, Ellmore TM, Berman KF. Context-dependent, neural system-specific neurophysiological concomitants of ageing: Mapping PET correlates during cognitive activation. Brain: A Journal of Neurology. 1999;122(5):963–979. [PubMed]
* Evans BJ, Rowlands G. Correctable visual impairment in older people: A major unmet need. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2004;24(3):161–180. [PubMed]
Fein G, McGillivray S, Finn P. Older adults make less advantageous decisions than younger adults: Cognitive and psychological correlates. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS. 2007;13(3):480–489. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Feld JE, Sommers MS. Lipreading, Processing speed, and working memory in younger and older adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2009;52(6):1555–1565. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Feng MC, Courtney CG, Mather M, Dawson ME, Davison GC. Age-related affective modulation of the startle eyeblink response: Older adults startle most when viewing positive pictures. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):752–760. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Fernandes M, Ross M, Wiegand M, Schryer E. Are the memories of older adults positively biased? Psychology and Aging. 2008;23(2):297–306. [PubMed]
Ferraro FR, Kellas G. Age-related changes in the effects of target orientation on word recognition. Journal of Gerontology. 1992;47(4):279–280. [PubMed]
Fisk AD, Cooper BP, Hertzog C, Anderson-Garlach MM, Lee MD. Understanding performance and learning in consistent memory search: An age-related perspective. Psychology and Aging. 1995;10(2):255–268. [PubMed]
Fisk AD, Rogers WA. Toward an understanding of age-related memory and visual search effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 1991;120(2):131–149. [PubMed]
Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Cooper BP, Gilbert DK. Automatic category search and its transfer: Aging, type of search, and level of learning. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1997;52(2):91–102. [PubMed]
Foos PW, Goolkasian P. Age differences and format effects in working memory. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(3):273–286. [PubMed]
Ford JM, Askari N, Mathalon DH, Menon V, Gabrieli JD, Tinklenberg JR, Yesavage J. Event-related brain potential evidence of spared knowledge in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):161–176. [PubMed]
* Friedman SM, Munoz B, Rubin GS, West SK, Bandeen-Roche K, Fried LP. Characteristics of discrepancies between self-reported visual function and measured reading speed. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Team. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 1999;40(5):858–864. [PubMed]
Frings L, Mader I, Hüll M. Watching TV news as a memory task--brain activation and age effects. BMC Neuroscience. 2010;11:106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Gaesser B, Sacchetti DC, Addis DR, Schacter DL. Characterizing age-related changes in remembering the past and imagining the future. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):80–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Gamboz N, Borella E, Brandimonte MA. The role of switching, inhibition and working memory in older adults’ performance in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2009;16(3):260–284. [PubMed]
Gamboz N, Russo R, Fox E. Target selection difficulty, negative priming, and aging. Psychology and Aging. 2000;15(3):542–550. [PubMed]
Gamboz N, Zamarian S, Cavallero C. Age-related differences in the attention network test (ANT) Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(3):287–305. [PubMed]
Gardner MK, Hill RD, Was CA. A procedural approach to remembering personal identification numbers among older adults. PloS One. 2011;6(10):e25428. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Garnham L, Sloper JJ. Effect of age on adult stereoacuity as measured by different types of stereotest. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;90(1):91–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Georgiou-Karistianis N, Tang J, Mehmedbegovic F, Farrow M, Bradshaw J, Sheppard D. Age-related differences in cognitive function using a global local hierarchical paradigm. Brain Research. 2006;1124(1):86–95. [PubMed]
Georgiou-Karistianis N, Tang J, Vardy Y, Sheppard D, Evans N, Wilson M, Bradshaw J. Progressive age-related changes in the attentional blink paradigm. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition. 2007;14(3):213–226. [PubMed]
* Gilmore GC, Spinks RA, Thomas CW. Age effects in coding tasks: Componential analysis and test of the sensory deficit hypothesis. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(1):7–18. [PubMed]
Glahn DC, Gur RC, Ragland JD, Censits DM, Gur RE. Reliability, performance characteristics, construct validity, and an initial clinical application of a visual object learning test (VOLT) Neuropsychology. 1997;11(4):602–612. [PubMed]
Glass JM. Visual function and cognitive aging: Differential role of contrast sensitivity in verbal versus spatial tasks. Psychology and Aging. 2007;22(2):233–238. [PubMed]
Gopie N, Craik FIM, Hasher L. Destination memory impairment in older people. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):922–928. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Gottlob LR. Age-related deficits in guided search using cues. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(3):526–534. [PubMed]
Gottlob LR, Fillmore MT, Abroms BD. Age-group differences in saccadic interference. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2007;62(2):85–89. [PubMed]
* Grady C. The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2012;13:491–505. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Grady CL, Bernstein LJ, Beig S, Siegenthaler AL. The effects of encoding task on age-related differences in the functional neuroanatomy of face memory. Psychology and Aging. 2002;17(1):7–23. [PubMed]
Grady CL, Maisog JM, Horwitz B, Ungerleider LG, Mentis MJ, Salerno JA, Haxby JV. Age-related changes in cortical blood flow activation during visual processing of faces and location. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 1994;14(3):1450–1462. [PubMed]
Graham ER, Burke DM. Aging increases inattentional blindness to the gorilla in our midst. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):162–166. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Greene HA, Madden DJ. Adult age differences in visual acuity, stereopsis, and contrast sensitivity. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics. 1987;64:749–753. [PubMed]
Greenhut-wertz J, Manning SK. Suffix effects and intrusion errors in young and elderly subjects. Experimental Aging Research. 1995;21(2):173–190. [PubMed]
Greenwood PM, Parasuraman R. The scaling of spatial attention in visual search and its modification in healthy aging. Perception & Psychophysics. 2004;66(1):3–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Grunwald JE, Piltz J, Patel N, Bose S, Riva CE. Effect of aging on retinal macular microcirculation: A blue field simulation study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 1993;34(13):3609–3613. [PubMed]
Guerreiro MJS, Adam JJ, Van Gerven PWM. Automatic selective attention as a function of sensory modality in aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2012;67B(2):194–202. [PubMed]
Guerreiro MJS, Van Gerven PWM. Now you see it, now you don’t: Evidence for age-dependent and age-independent cross-modal distraction. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):415–426. [PubMed]
Habak C, Wilkinson F, Wilson HR. Preservation of shape discrimination in aging. Journal of Vision. 2009;9(12):18–18. [PubMed]
Hahn S, Kramer AF. Attentional flexibility and aging: You don’t need to be 20 years of age to split the beam. Psychology and Aging. 1995;10(4):597–609. [PubMed]
Halamish V, McGillivray S, Castel AD. Monitoring one’s own forgetting in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):631–635. [PubMed]
Hale S, Rose NS, Myerson J, Strube MJ, Sommers M, Tye-Murray N, Spehar B. The structure of working memory abilities across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):92–110. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Halpern DF. Age differences in response time to verbal and symbolic traffic signs. Experimental Aging Research. 1984;10(4):201–204. [PubMed]
Hamami A, Serbun SJ, Gutchess AH. Self-referencing enhances memory specificity with age. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):636–646. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hampshire A, Gruszka A, Fallon SJ, Owen AM. Inefficiency in self-organized attentional switching in the normal aging population is associated with decreased activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008;20(9):1670–1686. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hanna-Pladdy B, Choi H. Age-related deficits in auditory confrontation naming. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(3):691–696. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hartley AA. Age differences in dual-task interference are localized to response-generation processes. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):47–54. [PubMed]
Hartley AA, Kieley JM. Adult age differences in the inhibition of return of visual attention. Psychology and Aging. 1995;10(4):670. [PubMed]
Hartley AA, Little DM, Speer NK, Jonides J. Input, retention, and output factors affecting adult age differences in visuospatial short-term memory. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66(4):435–443. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hartman M, Bolton E, Fehnel SE. Accounting for age differences on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Decreased working memory, not inflexibility. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(3):385–399. [PubMed]
Hartman M, Nielsen C, Stratton B. The contributions of attention and working memory to age differences in concept identification. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2004;26(2):227–245. [PubMed]
* Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working memory, comprehension and aging: A review and a new view. In: Bower GH, editor. The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 22. Orlando: Academic Press; 1988. pp. 193–225.
Head D, Raz N, Gunning-Dixon F, Williamson A, Acker JD. Age-related differences in the course of cognitive skill acquisition: The role of regional cortical shrinkage and cognitive resources. Psychology and Aging. 2002;17(1):72–84. [PubMed]
* Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods. 1998;3(4):486.
Henkel LA, Rajaram S. Collaborative remembering in older adults: Age-invariant outcomes in the context of episodic recall deficits. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):532–545. [PubMed]
Henninger DE, Madden DJ, Huettel SA. Processing speed and memory mediate age-related differences in decision making. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(2):262–270. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Herbert LE, Weuve J, Scherr PA, Evans DA. Alzheimer disease in the United States (2010–2050) estimated using the 2010 census. Neurology. 2013;80:1778–1783. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hertzog C, Cooper BP, Fisk AD. Aging and individual differences in the development of skilled memory search performance. Psychology and Aging. 1996;11(3):497–520. [PubMed]
Hertzog C, Touron DR. Age differences in memory retrieval shift: Governed by feeling-of-knowing? Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):647–660. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hertzog C, Touron DR, Hines JC. Does a time-monitoring deficit influence older adults’ delayed retrieval shift during skill acquisition? Psychology and Aging. 2007;22(3):607–624. [PubMed]
Hildebrandt A, Wilhelm O, Schmiedek F, Herzmann G, Sommer W. On the specificity of face cognition compared with general cognitive functioning across adult age. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):701–715. [PubMed]
Hogan MJ. Divided attention in older but not younger adults is impaired by anxiety. Experimental Aging Research. 2003;29(2):111–136. [PubMed]
Hoyer WJ, Cerella J, Buchler NG. A search-by-clusters model of visual search: Fits to data from younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66B(4):402–410. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hugenschmidt CE, Mozolic JL, Laurienti PJ. Suppression of multisensory integration by modality-specific attention in aging. Neuroreport. 2009;20(4):349–353. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Hugenschmidt CE, Peiffer AM, McCoy TP, Hayasaka S, Laurienti PJ. Preservation of crossmodal selective attention in healthy aging. Experimental Brain Research. 2009;198(2–3):273–285. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Humphrey DG, Kramer AF. Age differences in visual search for feature, conjunction, and triple-conjunction targets. Psychology and Aging. 1997;12(4):704. [PubMed]
Hunter EM, Phillips LH, MacPherson SE. Effects of age on cross-modal emotion perception. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):779–787. [PubMed]
Jäger T, Mecklinger A, Kliegel M. Associative recognition memory for faces: More pronounced age-related impairments in binding intra- than inter-item associations. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(2):123–139. [PubMed]
James LE, Kooy TM. Aging and the detection of visual errors in scenes. Journal of Aging Research. 2011;2011:984694. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Jamieson BA, Rogers WA. Age-related effects of blocked and random practice schedules on learning a new technology. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2000;55(6):343–353. [PubMed]
Jenkins L, Myerson J, Joerding JA, Hale S. Converging evidence that visuospatial cognition is more age-sensitive than verbal cognition. Psychology and Aging. 2000;15(1):157–175. [PubMed]
Jennings JR, Mendelson DN, Redfern MS, Nebes RD. Detecting age differences in resistance to perceptual and motor interference. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(2):179–197. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Lewis RA. Evidence for a neural basis of age-related visual field loss in normal observers. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 1989;30(9):2056–2064. [PubMed]
Joy S, Kaplan E, Fein D. Speed and memory in the WAIS-III Digit Symbol--Coding subtest across the adult lifespan. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists. 2004;19(6):759–767. [PubMed]
Kadota K, Gomi H. Implicit visuomotor processing for quick online reactions is robust against aging. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2010;30(1):205–209. [PubMed]
Kalisch T, Kattenstroth J-C, Kowalewski R, Tegenthoff M, Dinse HR. Cognitive and tactile factors affecting human haptic performance in later life. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(1):e30420. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Kaneko R, Kuba Y, Sakata Y, Kuchinomachi Y. Aging and shifts of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Experimental Aging Research. 2004;30(2):149–162. [PubMed]
Karas R, McKendrick AM. Aging alters surround modulation of perceived contrast. Journal of Vision. 2009;9(5):11.1–9. [PubMed]
Karayanidis F, Whitson LR, Heathcote A, Michie PT. Variability in proactive and reactive cognitive control processes across the adult lifespan. Frontiers in Psychology. 2011;2 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Karpel ME, Hoyer WJ, Toglia MP. Accuracy and qualities of real and suggested memories: Nonspecific age differences. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001;56(2):103–110. [PubMed]
Kavé G, Knafo A, Gilboa A. The rise and fall of word retrieval across the lifespan. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(3):719–724. [PubMed]
Kemper S, Schmalzried R, Hoffman L, Herman R. Aging and the vulnerability of speech to dual task demands. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):949–962. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Kemps E, Newson R. Comparison of adult age differences in verbal and visuo-spatial memory: The importance of “pure”, parallel and validated measures. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2006;28(3):341–356. [PubMed]
Kemtes KA, Allen DN. Presentation modality influences WAIS Digit Span performance in younger and older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2008;30(6):661–665. [PubMed]
Kennedy GJ, Tripathy SP, Barrett BT. Early age-related decline in the effective number of trajectories tracked in adult human vision. Journal of Vision. 2009;9(2):21.1–10. [PubMed]
Kennedy KM, Raz N. Aging white matter and cognition: Differential effects of regional variations in diffusion properties on memory, executive functions, and speed. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(3):916–927. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Kieley JM, Hartley AA. Age-related equivalence of identity suppression in the Stroop color-word task. Psychology and Aging. 1997;12(1):22–29. [PubMed]
Kim S-Y, Giovanello KS. The effects of attention on age-related relational memory deficits: Evidence from a novel attentional manipulation. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):678–688. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Kirasic KC, Allen GL, Dobson SH, Binder KS. Aging, cognitive resources, and declarative learning. Psychology and Aging. 1996;11(4):658. [PubMed]
Kitzan LJ, Ferraro FR, Petros TV, Ludorf M. The role of vocabulary ability during visual word recognition in younger and older adults. The Journal of General Psychology. 1999;126(1):6–16. [PubMed]
Klein C, Fischer B, Hartnegg K, Heiss WH, Roth M. Optomotor and neuropsychological performance in old age. Experimental Brain Research. 2000;135(2):141–154. [PubMed]
* Klein R, Klein BEK, Lee KE, Cruickshanks KJ, Gangnon RE. Changes in Visual Acuity in a Population Over a 15-year Period: The Beaver Dam Eye Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;142(4):539–549.e2. [PubMed]
Klistorner AI, Graham SL. Electroencephalogram-based scaling of multifocal visual evoked potentials: Effect on intersubject amplitude variability. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2001;42(9):2145–2152. [PubMed]
Kolarik AJ, Margrain TH, Freeman TCA. Precision and accuracy of ocular following: Influence of age and type of eye movement. Experimental Brain Research. 2010;201(2):271–282. [PubMed]
Kornell N, Castel AD, Eich TS, Bjork RA. Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(2):498–503. [PubMed]
Kotary L, Hoyer WJ. Age and the ability to inhibit distractor information in visual selective attention. Experimental Aging Research. 1995;21(2):159–171. [PubMed]
Kramer AF, Atchley P. Age-related effects in the marking of old objects in visual search. Psychology and Aging. 2000;15(2):286. [PubMed]
Kramer AF, Hahn S, Irwin DE, Theeuwes J. Attentional capture and aging: Implications for visual search performance and oculomotor control. Psychology and Aging. 1999;14(1):135. [PubMed]
Kramer AF, Humphrey DG, Larish JF, Logan GD, Strayer DL. Aging and inhibition: Beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. Psychology and Aging. 1994;9(4):491–512. [PubMed]
Kramer AF, Martin-Emerson R, Larish JF, Andersen GJ. Aging and filtering by movement in visual search. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1996;51(4):201–216. [PubMed]
Kramer AF, Weber TA. Object-based attentional selection and aging. Psychology and Aging. 1999;14(1):99. [PubMed]
Krampe RT, Doumas M, Lavrysen A, Rapp M. The costs of taking it slowly: Fast and slow movement timing in older age. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):980–990. [PubMed]
Kray J, Lucenet J, Blaye A. Can older adults enhance task-switching performance by verbal self-instructions? The influence of working-memory load and early learning. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2010;2:147. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Krendl AC, Ambady N. Older adults’ decoding of emotions: Role of dynamic versus static cues and age-related cognitive decline. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):788–793. [PubMed]
Kurylo DD. Effects of aging on perceptual organization: Efficacy of stimulus features. Experimental Aging Research. 2006;32(2):137–152. [PubMed]
* La Fleur CG, Salthouse TA. Out of sight, out of mind? Relations between visual acuity and cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2014;21(5):1202–1208. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Lamar M, Resnick SM. Aging and prefrontal functions: Dissociating orbitofrontal and dorsolateral abilities. Neurobiology of Aging. 2004;25(4):553–558. [PubMed]
Lange EB, Verhaeghen P. No age differences in complex memory search: Older adults search as efficiently as younger adults. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(1):105–115. [PubMed]
Langley LK, Fuentes LJ, Vivas AB, Saville AL. Aging and temporal patterns of inhibition of return. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2007;62(2):71–77. [PubMed]
Langley LK, Rokke PD, Stark AC, Saville AL, Allen JL, Bagne AG. The emotional blink: Adult age differences in visual attention to emotional information. Psychology and Aging. 2008;23(4):873–885. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Langley LK, Saville AL, Gayzur ND, Fuentes LJ. Adult age differences in attention to semantic context. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition. 2008;15(6):657–686. [PubMed]
Langley LK, Vivas AB, Fuentes LJ, Bagne AG. Differential age effects on attention-based inhibition: Inhibitory tagging and inhibition of return. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(2):356–360. [PubMed]
Lawson AL, Guo C, Jiang Y. Age effects on brain activity during repetition priming of targets and distracters. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(6):1223–1231. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Lesch MF, Horrey WJ, Wogalter MS, Powell WR. Age-related differences in warning symbol comprehension and training effectiveness: Effects of familiarity, complexity, and comprehensibility. Ergonomics. 2011;54(10):879–890. [PubMed]
Lien M-C, Gemperle A, Ruthruff E. Aging and involuntary attention capture: Electrophysiological evidence for preserved attentional control with advanced age. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):188–202. [PubMed]
Li J, Nilsson L-G, Wu Z. Effects of age and anxiety on episodic memory: Selectivity and variability. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2004;45(2):123–129. [PubMed]
Li RW, Brown B, Edwards MH, Ngo CV, Chat SW, Levi DM. Reduced sampling efficiency causes degraded Vernier hyperacuity with normal aging: Vernier acuity in position noise. Scientific Reports. 2012;2:300. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Lin C-HJ, Wu AD, Udompholkul P, Knowlton BJ. Contextual interference effects in sequence learning for young and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):929–939. [PubMed]
* Lindenberger U, Baltes PB. Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: A strong connection. Psychology and Aging. 1994;9(3):339–355. [PubMed]
* Lindenberger U, Ghisletta P. Cognitive and sensory declines in old age: Gauging the evidence for a common cause. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(1):1–16. [PubMed]
Löckenhoff CE, O’Donoghue T, Dunning D. Age differences in temporal discounting: The role of dispositional affect and anticipated emotions. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):274–284. [PubMed]
* Logan JM, Sanders AL, Snyder AZ, Morris JC, Buckner RL. Under-recruitment and nonselective recruitment: Dissociable neural mechanisms associated with aging. Neuron. 2002;33:827–840. [PubMed]
Lövdén M, Schellenbach M, Grossman-Hutter B, Krüger A, Lindenberger U. Environmental topography and postural control demands shape aging-associated decrements in spatial navigation performance. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(4):683–694. [PubMed]
Luo L, Hendriks T, Craik FIM. Age differences in recollection: Three patterns of enhanced encoding. Psychology and Aging. 2007;22(2):269–280. [PubMed]
Madden DJ. Age differences and similarities in the improvement of controlled search. Experimental Aging Research. 1982;8(2):91–98. [PubMed]
Madden DJ. Adult age differences in the effects of sentence context and stimulus degradation during visual word recognition. Psychology and Aging. 1988;3(2):167. [PubMed]
Madden DJ. Four to ten milliseconds per year: Age-related slowing of visual word identification. Journal of Gerontology. 1992;47(2):P59–P68. [PubMed]
Madden DJ. Selective attention and visual search: Revision of an allocation model and application to age differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. 1992;18(3):821–836. [PubMed]
* Madden DJ. Aging and Visual Attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;16(2):70–74. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Madden DJ, Greene HA. From retina to response: Contrast sensitivity and memory retrieval during visual word recognition. Experimental Aging Research. 1987;13:15–21. [PubMed]
Madden DJ, Langley LK. Age-related changes in selective attention and perceptual load during visual search. Psychology and Aging. 2003;18(1):54–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Madden DJ, Spaniol J, Bucur B, Whiting WL. Age-related increase in top-down activation of visual features. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006) 2007;60(5):644–651. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Madden DJ, Turkington TG, Provenzale JM, Denny LL, Langley LK, Hawk TC, Coleman RE. Aging and attentional guidance during visual search: Functional neuroanatomy by positron emission tomography. Psychology and Aging. 2002;17(1):24–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Madden DJ, Whiting WL, Spaniol J, Bucur B. Adult age differences in the implicit and explicit components of top-down attentional guidance during visual search. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(2):317–329. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Maddox GB, Balota DA, Coane JH, Duchek JM. The role of forgetting rate in producing a benefit of expanded over equal spaced retrieval in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):661–670. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Maguinness C, Setti A, Burke KE, Kenny RA, Newell FN. The effect of combined sensory and semantic components on audio–visual speech perception in older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2011;3 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Maintenant C, Blaye A, Paour J-L. Semantic categorical flexibility and aging: Effect of semantic relations on maintenance and switching. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):461–466. [PubMed]
Malania M, Devinck F, Knoblauch K, Delahunt PB, Hardy JL, Werner JS. Senescent changes in photopic spatial summation. Journal of Vision. 2011;11(10) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Malmstrom T, LaVoie DJ. Age differences in inhibition of schema-activated distractors. Experimental Aging Research. 2002;28(3):281–298. [PubMed]
Mani TM, Bedwell JS, Miller LS. Age-related decrements in performance on a brief continuous performance test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists. 2005;20(5):575–586. [PubMed]
Maquestiaux F, Laguë-Beauvais M, Ruthruff E, Hartley A, Bherer L. Learning to bypass the central bottleneck: Declining automaticity with advancing age. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(1):177–192. [PubMed]
Masunaga H, Horn J. Expertise and age-related changes in components of intelligence. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(2):293–311. [PubMed]
Mata R, von Helversen B, Rieskamp J. Learning to choose: Cognitive aging and strategy selection learning in decision making. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(2):299–309. [PubMed]
Mather M, Schoeke A. Positive outcomes enhance incidental learning for both younger and older adults. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2011;5:129. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Maury P, Besse F, Martin S. Age differences in outdated information processing during news reports reading. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(4):371–392. [PubMed]
Maylor EA, Birak KS, Schlaghecken F. Inhibitory motor control in old age: Evidence for de-automatization? Frontiers in Psychology. 2011;2:132. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Maylor EA, Lavie N. The influence of perceptual load on age differences in selective attention. Psychology and Aging. 1998;13(4):563. [PubMed]
Mayr U. Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):96–109. [PubMed]
McAuley JD, Miller JP, Wang M, Pang KCH. Dividing time: Concurrent timing of auditory and visual events by young and elderly adults. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(3):306–324. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
McDowd JM, Craik FI. Effects of aging and task difficulty on divided attention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance. 1988;14(2):267–280. [PubMed]
McDowd JM, Oseas-Kreger DM. Aging, inhibitory processes, and negative priming. Journal of Gerontology. 1991;46(6):340–345. [PubMed]
McGillivray S, Castel AD. Memory for age-face associations in younger and older adults: The role of generation and schematic support. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):822–832. [PubMed]
McGillivray S, Castel AD. Betting on memory leads to metacognitive improvement by younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):137–142. [PubMed]
* McGowan VA, Paterson KB, Jordan TR. Age-related visual impairments and perceiving linguistic stimuli: The rarity of assessing the visual abilities of older participants in written language research. Experimental Aging Research. 2013;39(1):70–79. [PubMed]
McKendrick AM, Sampson GP, Walland MJ, Badcock DR. Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: Low-spatial-frequency losses in both magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2007;48(5):2115–2122. [PubMed]
McKendrick AM, Weymouth AE, Battista J. The effect of normal aging on closed contour shape discrimination. Journal of Vision. 2010;10(2):1.1–9. [PubMed]
McLaughlin PM, Murtha SJE. The effects of age and exogenous support on visual search performance. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(3):325–345. [PubMed]
McLaughlin PM, Szostak C, Binns MA, Craik FIM, Tipper SP, Stuss DT. The effects of age and task demands on visual selective attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale. 2010;64(3):197–207. [PubMed]
McLellan JS, Marcos S, Burns SA. Age-related changes in monochromatic wave aberrations of the human eye. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2001;42(6):1390–1395. [PubMed]
Mell T, Wartenburger I, Marschner A, Villringer A, Reischies FM, Heekeren HR. Altered function of ventral striatum during reward-based decision making in old age. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2009;3:34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Mienaltowski A, Corballis PM, Blanchard-Fields F, Parks NA, Hilimire MR. Anger management: Age differences in emotional modulation of visual processing. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):224–231. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Mikels JA, Larkin GR, Reuter-Lorenz PA, Carstensen LL. Divergent trajectories in the aging mind. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(4):542–553. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Miles JR, Stine-Morrow EAL. Adult age differences in self-regulated learning from reading sentences. Psychology and Aging. 2004;19(4):626–636. [PubMed]
Mill A, Allik J, Realo A, Valk R. Age-related differences in emotion recognition ability: A cross-sectional study. Emotion. 2009;9(5):619–630. [PubMed]
Miller LMS, West RL. The effects of age, control beliefs, and feedback on self-regulation of reading and problem solving. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(1):40–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Moffat SD, Kennedy KM, Rodrigue KM, Raz N. Extrahippocampal Contributions to Age Differences in Human Spatial Navigation. Cerebral Cortex. 2007;17(6):1274–1282. [PubMed]
Morrone I, Declercq C, Novella J-L, Besche C. Aging and inhibition processes: The case of metaphor treatment. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(3):697–701. [PubMed]
Morrow DG, Menard WE, Stine-Morrow EA, Teller T, Bryant D. The influence of expertise and task factors on age differences in pilot communication. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):31–46. [PubMed]
Müller-Oehring EM, Schulte T, Raassi C, Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV. Local–global interference is modulated by age, sex and anterior corpus callosum size. Brain Research. 2007;1142:189–205. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Mund I, Bell R, Buchner A. Age differences in reading with distraction: Sensory or inhibitory deficits? Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):886–897. [PubMed]
Murray BD, Muscatell KA, Kensinger EA. Effects of emotion and age on performance during a think/no-think memory task. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(4):940–955. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Nagel IE, Chicherio C, Li S-C, von Oertzen T, Sander T, Villringer A, Lindenberger U. Human aging magnifies genetic effects on executive functioning and working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2008;2:1. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Nashiro K, Mather M. How arousal affects younger and older adults’ memory binding. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;37(1):108–128. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Naveh-Benjamin M, Craik FI. Memory for context and its use in item memory: Comparisons of younger and older persons. Psychology and Aging. 1995;10(2):284–293. [PubMed]
Neider MB, Gaspar JG, McCarley JS, Crowell JA, Kaczmarski H, Kramer AF. Walking and talking: Dual-task effects on street crossing behavior in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):260–268. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Neider MB, Kramer AF. Older adults capitalize on contextual information to guide search. Experimental Aging Research. 2011;37(5):539–571. [PubMed]
Nemeth D, Janacsek K. The dynamics of implicit skill consolidation in young and elderly adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66(1):15–22. [PubMed]
Nguyen-Tri D, Overbury O, Faubert J. The role of lenticular senescence in age-related color vision changes. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2003;44(8):3698–3704. [PubMed]
Nielson KA, Langenecker SA, Garavan H. Differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging. 2002;17(1):56–71. [PubMed]
Ni R, Kang JJ, Andersen GJ. Age-related declines in car following performance under simulated fog conditions. Accident; Analysis and Prevention. 2010;42(3):818–826. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Norman JF, Norman HF, Pattison K, Taylor MJ, Goforth KE. Aging and the depth of binocular rivalry suppression. Psychology and Aging. 2007;22(3):625–631. [PubMed]
O’Connor E, Margrain TH, Freeman TCA. Age, eye movement and motion discrimination. Vision Research. 2010;50(23):2588–2599. [PubMed]
Orgeta V. Effects of age and task difficulty on recognition of facial affect. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2010;65B(3):323–327. [PubMed]
Ostreicher ML, Moses SN, Rosenbaum RS, Ryan JD. Prior experience supports new learning of relations in aging. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2010;65B(1):32–41. [PubMed]
Overman AA, Becker JT. The associative deficit in older adult memory: Recognition of pairs is not improved by repetition. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(2):501–506. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Owsley C. Aging and vision. Vision Research. 2011;51(13):1610–1622. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Owsley C, Burton-Danner K, Jackson GR. Aging and spatial localization during feature search. Gerontology. 2000;46(6):300–305. doi:22181. [PubMed]
Owsley C, Sekuler R, Boldt C. Aging and low-contrast vision: Face perception. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 1981;21(2):362–365. [PubMed]
Park DC, Cherry KE, Smith AD, Lafronza VN. Effects of distinctive context on memory for objects and their locations in young and elderly adults. Psychology and Aging. 1990;5(2):250–255. [PubMed]
Park DC, Polk TA, Hebrank AC, Jenkins LJ. Age differences in default mode activity on easy and difficult spatial judgment tasks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2010;3:75. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Peltz CB, Gratton G, Fabiani M. Age-related changes in electrophysiological and neuropsychological indices of working memory, attention control, and cognitive flexibility. Frontiers in Psychology. 2011;2:190. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Perry ME, McDonald CR, Hagler DJ, Gharapetian L, Kuperman JM, Koyama AK, McEvoy LK. White matter tracts associated with set-shifting in healthy aging. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(13):2835–2842. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Phillips LH, Kliegel M, Martin M. Age and planning tasks: The influence of ecological validity. International Journal of Aging & Human Development. 2006;62(2):175–184. [PubMed]
Phillips LH, Smith L, Gilhooly KJ. The effects of adult aging and induced positive and negative mood on planning. Emotion. 2002;2(3):263–272. [PubMed]
Plude DJ, Doussard-Roosevelt JA. Aging, selective attention, and feature integration. Psychology and Aging. 1989;4(1):98. [PubMed]
Prado JM, Stoffregen TA, Duarte M. Postural sway during dual tasks in young and elderly adults. Gerontology. 2007;53(5):274–281. [PubMed]
Quigley C, Andersen SK, Schulze L, Grunwald M, Müller MM. Feature-selective attention: Evidence for a decline in old age. Neuroscience Letters. 2010;474(1):5–8. [PubMed]
Radvansky GA, Curiel JM, Zwaan RA, Copeland DE. Situation models and aging. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):145–160. [PubMed]
Rayner K, Castelhano MS, Yang J. Eye movements and the perceptual span in older and younger readers. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(3):755–760. [PubMed]
Rayner K, Reichle ED, Stroud MJ, Williams CC, Pollatsek A. The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(3):448–465. [PubMed]
Rayner K, Yang J, Castelhano MS, Liversedge SP. Eye movements of older and younger readers when reading disappearing text. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):214–223. [PubMed]
Redmond T, Zlatkova MB, Garway-Heath DF, Anderson RS. The effect of age on the area of complete spatial summation for chromatic and achromatic stimuli. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2010;51(12):6533–6539. [PubMed]
Reese CM, Cherry KE. The Effects of Age, Ability, and Memory Monitoring on Prospective Memory Task Performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2002;9(2):98–113.
Rémy P, Taconnat L, Isingrini M. Effects of aging and attention-demanding tasks on false recognition induced by photographs: Differences between conceptually and perceptually modified lures. Experimental Aging Research. 2008;34(3):220–231. [PubMed]
Richmond LL, Morrison AB, Chein JM, Olson IR. Working memory training and transfer in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(4):813–822. [PubMed]
Ridderinkhof KR, Span MM, van der Molen MW. Perseverative behavior and adaptive control in older adults: Performance monitoring, rule induction, and set shifting. Brain and Cognition. 2002;49(3):382–401. [PubMed]
Ridderinkhof KR, Wijnen JG. More than meets the eye: Age differences in the capture and suppression of oculomotor action. Frontiers in Psychology. 2011;2:267. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Risse S, Kliegl R. Adult age differences in the perceptual span during reading. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):451–460. [PubMed]
Robert C, Mathey S. Aging and lexical inhibition: The effect of orthographic neighborhood frequency in young and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2007;62(6):340–342. [PubMed]
Rogers WA, Gilbert DK. Do performance strategies mediate age-related differences in associative learning? Psychology and Aging. 1997;12(4):620–633. [PubMed]
Rosa NM, Gutchess AH. Source memory for action in young and older adults: Self vs. close or unknown others. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):625–630. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Rose NS, Myerson J, Sommers MS, Hale S. Are there age differences in the executive component of working memory? Evidence from domain-general interference effects. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition. 2009;16(6):633–653. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Rose NS, Rendell PG, McDaniel MA, Aberle I, Kliegel M. Age and individual differences in prospective memory during a “Virtual Week”: The roles of working memory, vigilance, task regularity, and cue focality. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(3):595–605. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Rosenthal R, DiMatteo MR. Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52(1):59. [PubMed]
Ross JE, Clarke DD, Bron AJ. Effect of age on contrast sensitivity function: Uniocular and binocular findings. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 1985;69(1):51–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Ross CK, Stelmack JA, Stelmack TR, Guihan M, Fraim M. Development and sensitivity to visual impairment of the Low Vision Functional Status Evaluation (LVFSE) Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry. 1999;76(4):212–220. [PubMed]
Roux F, Ceccaldi M. Does aging affect the allocation of visual attention in global and local information processing? Brain and Cognition. 2001;46(3):383–396. [PubMed]
Ruffman T, Sullivan S, Dittrich W. Older adults’ recognition of bodily and auditory expressions of emotion. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(3):614–622. [PubMed]
Rutledge PC, Hancock RA, Walker L. Effects of retention interval length on young and elderly adults’ memory for spatial information. Experimental Aging Research. 1997;23(2):163–177. [PubMed]
Ryan M, Murray J, Ruffman T. Aging and the perception of emotion: Processing vocal expressions alone and with faces. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(1):1–22. [PubMed]
Rypma B, Prabhakaran V, Desmond JE, Gabrieli JDE. Age differences in prefrontal cortical activity in working memory. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(3):371–384. [PubMed]
Saimpont A, Pozzo T, Papaxanthis C. Aging affects the mental rotation of left and right hands. PloS One. 2009;4(8):e6714. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Salthouse TA. Influence of processing speed on adult age differences in working memory. Acta Psychologica. 1992;79(2):155–170. [PubMed]
* Salthouse TA. Effects of age and ability on components of cognitive change. Intelligence. 2013;41(5):501–511. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Salthouse TA. Correlates of cognitive change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2014;143(3):1026–1048. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Salthouse TA, Fristoe N, McGuthry KE, Hambrick DZ. Relation of task switching to speed, age, and fluid intelligence. Psychology and Aging. 1998;13(3):445. [PubMed]
* Salthouse TA, Hancock HE, Meinz EJ, Hambrick DZ. Interrelations of age, visual acuity, and cognitive functioning. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1996;51(6):317–330. [PubMed]
Sambataro F, Murty VP, Callicott JH, Tan H-Y, Das S, Weinberger DR, Mattay VS. Age-related alterations in default mode network: Impact on working memory performance. Neurobiology of Aging. 2010;31(5):839–852. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Sander MC, Werkle-Bergner M, Lindenberger U. Binding and strategic selection in working memory: A lifespan dissociation. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):612–624. [PubMed]
Scheibe S, Blanchard-Fields F. Effects of regulating emotions on cognitive performance: What is costly for young adults is not so costly for older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(1):217–223. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Schmiedek F, Li S-C. Toward an alternative representation for disentangling age-associated differences in general and specific cognitive abilities. Psychology and Aging. 2004;19(1):40–56. [PubMed]
Schmitz TW, Cheng FHT, De Rosa E. Failing to ignore: Paradoxical neural effects of perceptual load on early attentional selection in normal aging. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2010;30(44):14750–14758. [PubMed]
Scialfa CT, Hamaluk E. Aging, texture segmentation, and exposure duration: Evidence for a deficit is preattentive processing. Experimental Aging Research. 2001;27(2):123–135. [PubMed]
Scialfa CT, Hamaluk E, Skaloud P, Pratt J. Age differences in saccadic averaging. Psychology and Aging. 1999;14(4):695. [PubMed]
Scialfa CT, Thomas DM. Age differences in same-different judgments as a function of multidimensional similarity. Journal of Gerontology. 1994;49(4):173–178. [PubMed]
Shafto MA. Orthographic error monitoring in old age: Lexical and sublexical availability during perception and production. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):991–1001. [PubMed]
Shan I-K, Chen Y-S, Lee Y-C, Su T-P. Adult normative data of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in Taiwan. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association: JCMA. 2008;71(10):517–522. [PubMed]
Shih S-I, Meadmore KL, Liversedge SP. Aging, eye movements, and object-location memory. PloS One. 2012;7(3):e33485. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Silver H, Goodman C, Gur RC, Gur RE, Bilker WB. “Executive” functions and normal aging: Selective impairment in conditional exclusion compared to abstraction and inhibition. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. 2011;31(1):53–62. [PubMed]
Simon JR, Howard JH, Howard DV. Age differences in implicit learning of probabilistic unstructured sequences. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66(1):32–38. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Skeel RL, Nagra A, VanVoorst W, Olson E. The relationship between performance-based visual acuity screening, self-reported visual acuity, and neuropsychological performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2003;17(2):129–136. [PubMed]
* Skeel RL, Schutte C, van Voorst W, Nagra A. The relationship between visual contrast sensitivity and neuropsychological performance in a healthy elderly sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2006;28(5):696–705. [PubMed]
Skinner EI, Fernandes MA. Age-related changes in the use of study context to increase recollection. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition. 2009;16(4):377–400. [PubMed]
Slessor G, Laird G, Phillips LH, Bull R, Filippou D. Age-related differences in gaze following: Does the age of the face matter? The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2010;65(5):536–541. [PubMed]
Smith AD, Park DC, Earles JL, Shaw RJ, Whiting WL. Age differences in context integration in memory. Psychology and Aging. 1998;13(1):21–28. [PubMed]
Smith RE. Providing support for distinctive processing: The isolation effect in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(3):744–751. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Smyth AC, Shanks DR. Aging and implicit learning: Explorations in contextual cuing. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(1):127–132. [PubMed]
Solbakk A-K, Fuhrmann Alpert G, Furst AJ, Hale LA, Oga T, Chetty S, Knight RT. Altered prefrontal function with aging: Insights into age-associated performance decline. Brain Research. 2008;1232:30–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Sorond FA, Schnyer DM, Serrador JM, Milberg WP, Lipsitz LA. Cerebral blood flow regulation during cognitive tasks: Effects of healthy aging. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 2008;44(2):179–184. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Spaniol J, Voss A, Bowen HJ, Grady CL. Motivational incentives modulate age differences in visual perception. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(4):932–939. [PubMed]
Speranza F, Moraglia G, Schneider BA. Binocular detection of masked patterns in young and old observers. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(2):281–292. [PubMed]
Stern Y, Zarahn E, Habeck C, Holtzer R, Rakitin BC, Kumar A, Brown T. A common neural network for cognitive reserve in verbal and object working memory in young but not old. Cerebral Cortex. 2008;18(4):959–967. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Stine-Morrow EAL, Miller LMS, Hertzog C. Aging and self-regulated language processing. Psychological Bulletin. 2006;132(4):582–606. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Stine-Morrow EA, Milinder L, Pullara O, Herman B. Patterns of resource allocation are reliable among younger and older readers. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(1):69–84. [PubMed]
Strobach T, Frensch P, Müller HJ, Schubert T. Testing the Limits of Optimizing Dual-Task Performance in Younger and Older Adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012;6 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Sullivan S, Ruffman T, Hutton SB. Age differences in emotion recognition skills and the visual scanning of emotion faces. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2007;62(1):P53–P60. [PubMed]
Thompson L, Garcia E, Malloy D. Reliance on visible speech cues during multimodal language processing: Individual and age differences. Experimental Aging Research. 2007;33(4):373–397. [PubMed]
Titz C, Behrendt J, Hasselhorn M. Tomatoes and apples or red and green lines: Are age-related interference effects based on competition among concepts or percepts? Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(3):346–358. [PubMed]
Toth JP, Daniels KA, Solinger LA. What you know can hurt you: Effects of age and prior knowledge on the accuracy of judgments of learning. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(4):919–931. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Touron DR, Hertzog C. Age differences in strategic behavior during a computation-based skill acquisition task. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(3):574–585. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Touron DR, Hertzog C, Frank D. Eye movements and strategy shift in skill acquisition: Adult age differences. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66(2):151–159. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Touron DR, Hoyer WJ, Cerella J. Cognitive skill learning: Age-related differences in strategy shifts and speed of component operations. Psychology and Aging. 2004;19(4):565–580. [PubMed]
Trick LM, Perl T, Sethi N. Age-related differences in multiple-object tracking. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2005;60(2):102–105. [PubMed]
Troyer AK, D’Souza NA, Vandermorris S, Murphy KJ. Age-related differences in associative memory depend on the types of associations that are formed. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition. 2011;18(3):340–352. [PubMed]
Tse C-S, Balota DA, Roediger HL. The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face-name pairs in healthy older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):833–845. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Tucker AM, Basner RC, Stern Y, Rakitin BC. The variable response-stimulus interval effect and sleep deprivation: An unexplored aspect of psychomotor vigilance task performance. Sleep. 2009;32(10):1393–1395. [PubMed]
Tun PA, Wingfield A, Stine EA, Mecsas C. Rapid speech processing and divided attention: Processing rate versus processing resources as an explanation of age effects. Psychology and Aging. 1992;7(4):546–550. [PubMed]
Tye-Murray N, Sommers M, Spehar B, Myerson J, Hale S. Aging, audiovisual integration, and the principle of inverse effectiveness. Ear and Hearing. 2010;31(5):636–644. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Tye-Murray N, Sommers M, Spehar B, Myerson J, Hale S, Rose NS. Auditory-visual discourse comprehension by older and young adults in favorable and unfavorable conditions. International Journal of Audiology. 2008;47(Suppl 2):S31–S37. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Vakil E, Agmon-Ashkenazi D. Baseline performance and learning rate of procedural and declarative memory tasks: Younger versus older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1997;52(5):229–234. [PubMed]
Vallesi A, Hasher L, Stuss DT. Age-related differences in transfer costs: Evidence from go/nogo tasks. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(4):963–967. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Van Gerven PWM, Murphy DR. Aging and distraction by irrelevant speech: Does emotional valence matter? The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2010;65(6):667–670. [PubMed]
Veiel LL, Storandt M, Abrams RA. Visual search for change in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(4):754–762. [PubMed]
* Verhaeghen P. Aging and vocabulary scores: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging. 2003;18:332–339. [PubMed]
* Verhaeghen P. Aging and executive control: Reports of a demise greatly exaggerated. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011;20:174–180. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Verhaeghen P, Cerella J, Basak C. Aging, task complexity, and efficiency modes: The influence of working memory involvement on age differences in response times for verbal and visuospatial tasks. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2006;13(2):254–280. [PubMed]
Verhaeghen P, Hoyer WJ. Aging, focus switching, and task switching in a continuous calculation task: Evidence toward a new working memory control process. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2007;14(1):22–39. [PubMed]
Viggiano MP, Galli G, La Corte V, Ragazzoni A. Temporal dynamics of memory-related effects in older and young adults: An event-related potential study. Experimental Aging Research. 2010;36(2):206–229. [PubMed]
Wang W-C, Dew ITZ, Giovanello KS. Effects of aging and prospective memory on recognition of item and associative information. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(2):486–491. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Warrian KJ, Altangerel U, Spaeth GL. Performance-based measures of visual function. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2010;55(2):146–161. [PubMed]
Werheid K, Gruno M, Kathmann N, Fischer H, Almkvist O, Winblad B. Biased recognition of positive faces in aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(1):1–15. [PubMed]
Westbury C, Titone D. Idiom literality judgments in younger and older adults: Age-related effects in resolving semantic interference. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):467–474. [PubMed]
West R. The effects of aging on controlled attention and conflict processing in the Stroop task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2004;16(1):103–113. [PubMed]
West RL, Welch DC, Thorn RM. Effects of goal-setting and feedback on memory performance and beliefs among older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(2):240–250. [PubMed]
Whiting WL, Madden DJ, Babcock KJ. Overriding age differences in attentional capture with top-down processing. Psychology and Aging. 2007;22(2):223–232. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Whiting WL, Madden DJ, Pierce TW, Allen PA. Searching from the top down: Ageing and attentional guidance during singleton detection. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology. 2005;58(1):72–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Wiggs CL, Martin A. Aging and feature-specific priming of familiar and novel stimuli. Psychology and Aging. 1994;9(4):578–588. [PubMed]
Wilson HR, Mei M, Habak C, Wilkinson F. Visual bandwidths for face orientation increase during healthy aging. Vision Research. 2011;51(1):160–164. [PubMed]
Winneke AH, Phillips NA. Does audiovisual speech offer a fountain of youth for old ears? An event-related brain potential study of age differences in audiovisual speech perception. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):427–438. [PubMed]
Wood S, Busemeyer J, Koling A, Cox CR, Davis H. Older adults as adaptive decision makers: Evidence from the Iowa gambling task. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(2):220–225. [PubMed]
Wood S, Hanoch Y, Barnes A, Liu P-J, Cummings J, Bhattacharya C, Rice T. Numeracy and Medicare Part D: The importance of choice and literacy for numbers in optimizing decision making for Medicare’s prescription drug program. Psychology and Aging. 2011;26(2):295–307. [PubMed]
Zamarian L, Sinz H, Bonatti E, Gamboz N, Delazer M. Normal aging affects decisions under ambiguity, but not decisions under risk. Neuropsychology. 2008;22(5):645–657. [PubMed]
Zanto TP, Toy B, Gazzaley A. Delays in neural processing during working memory encoding in normal aging. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(1):13–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
* Zhang C, Hua T, Li G, Tang C, Sun Q, Zhou P. Visual function declines during normal aging. Current Science (00113891) 2008;95(11)