Crossmodal response precueing: age-related differences in action preparation

The Journals of Gerontology Series B, vol. 80

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the impact of crossmodal response precueing on action preparation in young and older adults. METHODS: Young (n = 37; 18-30 years) and older (n = 36; 60-77 years) adults performed a crossmodal visual-auditory version of the precueing paradigm, using a 4-choice task with 3 precue types. Informative precues either referred to response modality (manual vs vocal) or abstract spatial response feature (left vs right key press or vocal response). Informative precues reduced the number of possible stimulus-response options from 4 to 2, whereas uninformative precues cued all 4 possible options. The precueing benefit was calculated as the performance difference between informative versus uninformative precues. In addition, the cue-target interval (CTI) was varied to examine the benefit of long preparation time. RESULTS: Response-modality precues led to better performance compared to spatial and uninformative precues. In response-modality precues, older adults benefited more from long preparation time than young adults. For older adults, spatial precues produced a speed-accuracy tradeoff relative to uninformative cues, with shorter response times but higher error rates, particularly when the CTI was long. DISCUSSION: The pronounced increase in error rates with spatial precues when the CTI was long suggests that older adults had particular difficulty maintaining an abstract spatial response code without being able to specify the effector modality. Overall, the findings suggest that, in a complex multimodal setting involving variability in both stimulus modality and response modality, young and older adults are efficient when they are cued for a specific response modality.

Authors 6

1. Ludivine A. P. Schils corresponding Aachen Institute of Psychology

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University , Aachen,

   Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   RWTH Aachen University Institute of Psychology, , Aachen,

2. Iring Koch Aachen Institute of Psychology

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University , Aachen,

   Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   RWTH Aachen University Institute of Psychology, , Aachen,

3. Pi‐Chun Huang

   National Cheng Kung University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University , Tainan,

   Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

   National Cheng Kung University Department of Psychology, , Tainan,

4. Shulan Hsieh

   National Cheng Kung University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University , Tainan,

   Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

   National Cheng Kung University Department of Psychology, , Tainan,

5. Jos J. Adam

   Maastricht University

   Affiliation as printed

   Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Maastricht University , Maastricht,

   Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

   Maastricht University Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, , Maastricht, The

6. Denise N. Stephan Aachen Institute of Psychology

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University , Aachen,

   Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   RWTH Aachen University Institute of Psychology, , Aachen,