Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Verhaeghenhoyer
Verhaeghenhoyer
Verhaeghenhoyer
Syracuse University
Abstract
This study examined switching of the focus of attention in working memory in relation to
global task switching in a continuous calculation task using two rules (midpoint and up-
(necessitating a focus switch); focus switching did not interact with age in the response
time domain. No age differences were obtained for global task switching. Ex-Gaussian
decomposition showed a shift due to focus switching in all parameters, but a shift in
leading edge only for task switching. The results suggest that task switching and focus
switching rely on different processes, and that there is a specific age-related deficit in
focus switching.
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 3
tasks, such as simple and choice reaction times, working memory tasks, tests of episodic
memory, tests of spatial and reasoning abilities, mental rotation, and visual search (for
reviews, see e.g., Kausler, 1991; Salthouse, 1985, 1991). It has also been noted that many
of the observed declines are correlated across tasks (Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994;
Salthouse & Ferrer-Caja, 2003;Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997), suggesting that a small
number of factors may account for the majority of age differences. Many researchers
have claimed that the fundamental factors may well be relatively general processes or
general aspects of cognition (e.g., Cerella, 1990; Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Li,
resources, such as speed (Birren, 1965; Salthouse, 1996), but recently, attention has
control have already been investigated; notably, task coordination (e.g., Mayr & Kliegl,
1993; for a meta-analysis, see Verhaeghen, Steitz, Sliwinski, & Cerella, 2003), task
switching (e.g., Mayr, Spieler, & Kliegl, 2001; for a meta-analysis, see Wasylyshyn,
Verhaeghen, & Sliwinski, 2004), and inhibition (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Hasher,
Zacks, & May, 1999; for a computational approach, see Braver & Barch, 2002; for meta-
analyses, see Verhaeghen & De Meersman, 1998a, 1998b). Recently, we (Verhaeghen &
Basak, in press; Verhaeghen, Cerella, Bopp, & Basak, in press) have argued for the
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 4
process of switching the focus of attention within working memory from one stored
element to another.
Focus switching
memory has shown that working memory – the temporary buffer of the cognitive system
− is not unitary. Rather, working memory appears to have a hierarchical two-tier structure
(e.g., Cowan, 1995, 2001). Cowan’s model distinguishes an inner zone, labeled the focus
larger, activated portion of long term memory (not capacity-limited per se, but subject to
interference and decay, which places practical limits on the number of items that can be
retained). What distinguishes the two working memory zones is the speed of access.
Items contained within the focus of attention are retrieved immediately, whereas items
stored outside the focus of attention are subject to an additional retrieval operation. It is
the cost associated with this retrieval operation that we label the focus-switching cost (see
Voigt & Hagendorf, 2002, for evidence that this focus switching cost is largely due to
retrieval). Recent research has shown that in particular types of tasks, namely tasks of
serial attention (such as the N-Back task, or tasks in which participants keep track of
separate types of items) the size of the focus of attention may effectively shrink to one
(Garavan, 1998; McElree, 2001; McElree & Dosher, 1998; Oberauer, 2002). Such tasks
seem to be particularly well-suited for studying the costs associated with focus switching,
and the effects of aging on these costs. Figure 1 (top portion) schematizes this state of
affairs.
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 5
previously collected on younger and older adults with a task yielding a focus of one
(Verhaeghen & Basak, in press; the result has also been replicated by Verhaeghen,
Cerella, & Basak, 2004). The task was an identity-judgment N-Back task, as pioneered
by McElree (2001). In this task, the participant is presented with a sequence of digits, one
at a time; she is required to press one of two keys to indicate whether the digit currently
presented on the screen is identical or not to the digit presented N positions back in the
sequence. This task requires retrieval of the item from the position N back. If all items are
immediately accessible, we would expect either identical response times for all items or a
ramp function with a shallow slope of about 40 ms/item (Sternberg, 1966; this result
Ratcliff, 1978; Van Zandt & Townsend, 1993). That is not what was found. Instead, in
flat thereafter. This result suggests the existence of a focus-switching process operating
on a focus of attention which can hold no more than a single item. The result also shows
that this increase is not simply due to increased working-memory load: in that case, one
would expect a further increase in response time after N = 2. Such increase is not
Verhaeghen and Basak (in press) observed no age differences with regard to
focus-switching costs in response times once general slowing was taken into account.
The focus-switching cost in accuracy, however, was age-sensitive. Item loss outside the
focus of attention is likely due to item interference, and this age-sensitivity in accuracy
Another possibility is that in old age items decay more rapidly when stored outside the
focus of attention.
In the Verhaeghen and Basak (in press) study, we compared focus-switching with two
other control processes that might be related to or implicated in focus switching. The first
was updating, that is, the requirement to change the identity of an item that is stored in
working memory. In focus switching, updating the content of the focus, and potentially of
items outside the focus, seems to be one of the constituent processes. The second
comparison process was (global) task switching. Task switching and focus switching
obviously share a switching requirement. In focus switching, the task remains the same
across trials, but items have to be swapped in and out of the focus of attention. In task
switching, the task changes from trial to trial, but no storage (and therefore no swapping)
of items is necessary. Switching between tasks, like focus switching, increases response
times (e.g., Jersild, 1927; Rogers & Monsell, 1995). (Note that in this study, as in the
present experiment, we compared alternating sequences with pure sequences for task
switching, thereby including local, or specific, task switching costs, due to selection
between task sets, in the global task switching cost.) Our study suggested quite clearly
that focus switching is largely independent from both updating and task switching. First,
focus-switch costs did not interact with either updating costs (Experiments 1 and 2) or
global task-switching costs (Experiment 2). Second, two age-related dissociations were
found: Focus switching was age-sensitive in accuracy, but no age-sensitivity was found
for the either updating or task switching. Such dissociations can be taken as evidence for
the modular independence of processes (Perfect & Maylor, 2000; Sternberg, 2001).
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 7
Taken together, our earlier findings suggest (a) that focus switching is a control process
in its own right, distinct from task switching and updating, and (b) that focus switching
The aim of the present study is to provide additional evidence regarding the
particulars of this process of focus switching. More specifically, we examined three main
response times and accuracy could be observed in a new task, namely a continuous-
calculation task. This would indicate that the process is not task-specific, but rather
focus-switching cost was larger in older adults than in younger adults in the accuracy
domain, but not the response time domain, as could be predicted from the N-Back study.
Third, we tested whether further evidence could be found for the independence of the
focus-switching process from the processes involved in global task switching. To assess
independence, we used the dissociation method described above, that is, we examined
whether both processes were equally sensitive to aging, or not. If they were not, this
distributions using ex-Gaussian decomposition (see Methods), and examined whether the
two types of switching yielded identical effects on all three parameters. If they did not,
Our paradigm of choice was a continuous calculation task. The task was modeled
after a number reduction task used by Woltz, Bell, Kyllonen, and Gardner (1996) and
Woltz, Gardner, and Bell (2000). In the continuous calculation task, participants are
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 8
presented with a string of single-digit numbers, only one of which is visible at any given
time. A particular rule is applied to each successive pair of numbers; what rule is to be
applied is signified by the numerical difference between the numbers (see Methods). We
chose the continuous calculation task for two reasons. First, this task lends itself naturally
to an orthogonal manipulation of task switching (by alternating between the two rules; it
between addition and subtraction) and focus switching (by requiring the participant to
solve problems, alternating between two strings, only one of which is shown on the
screen at any time; this necessitates continuous switching between strings). Second, the
relatively short period of time. This in turn allows for the examination of the shape of the
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 25 younger adults (mean age = 18.8 years; SD = 1.2; 13
females) and 23 older adults (mean age = 68.1 years; SD = 4.3; 15 females). Young
adults were recruited from the human participant pool of the Department of Psychology
from the registry of the Adult Cognition Laboratory at Syracuse University. Participants
reported their education level and medication usage, and used a 5-point scale to rate their
overall physical health and their illness-related physical limitations. Individuals who
reported that they were not taking any medications known to affect memory or learning
and who rated their health and physical activity level as good or excellent (ratings of 2 or
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 9
acuity (with normal correction) was tested using a hand-held screener, and individuals
were excluded from participation if acuity was worse than 20/30. Mean years of
education for the younger adults and older adults were 12.4 (SD = 0.9) and 15.0 (SD =
calculation on the first pair, type in an answer, combine this answer with the following
item to perform the next calculation, and so on. Items were shown in one column (the
single condition) or two columns (the dual condition) on the screen. The digits shown
were 18 mm tall and 9 mm wide, the vertical separation between items was 5 mm;
horizontal separation between columns was 1.3 cm. Participants were encouraged to
choose a comfortable viewing distance from the screen; most preferred a distance of
stimuli of 1.5 degree. Only one digit was shown at any time; the order of presentation
was top-to-bottom when one column was shown, and a reading pattern (left-to-right, then
top-to-bottom) when two columns were shown. The first item of each column was
presented for 2,000 ms; from the second item in each column on, participants pressed one
of the keys on the numerical keyboard to indicate their answer. Immediately upon each
Two types of calculations (‘rules’) were used. When the numbers differed by two,
the participant reported the average of the two, and used that number to be combined with
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 10
the next number shown on the screen (‘midpoint rule’). When the numbers differed by
one, the participant reported the next number in the up or down sequence, and used that
number to be combined with the next number shown on the screen (‘up-and-down rule’).
To aid participants, all items for which the midpoint rule had to be used were shown in
yellow on a black background; all up-and-down items were shown in light blue on the
continuous series (‘single’ condition, no focus switching) versus having the participant
work on two series, each one shown in a different column on the screen (‘dual’ condition,
focus switching). Task switching was manipulated orthogonally by either having the
mixing the two rules according to a predictable ABAB… schema, always starting with
the midpoint rule (‘mixed’ condition). Note that this implies that in the combination of
focus switching and task switching (a mixed dual trial), the right-hand column always
contained only midpoint items, the left-hand column only up-and-down items. Table 1
trial, the subject received feedback about accuracy and average response time. An online
algorithm that used a random seed determined the exact composition of a trial; after the
second item was presented, the participant’s response was used to construct the next item.
This was done to spare the participants confusion after they made an error – we simply
took the erroneous answer as the basis for the next item. Note that the number of errors in
the pure, single condition was extremely low. Therefore, we can assume that there were
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 11
relatively few instances in which participants pressed the wrong answer key and
A total of 21 trials (yielding a total of 210 response times) was presented: 6 trials
each for pure single midpoint, pure dual midpoint, pure single up-and-down, pure dual
up-and-down, mixed single, and mixed dual; then 5 trials each for mixed dual, mixed
single, pure dual up-and-down, pure single up-and-down, pure dual midpoint, pure single
midpoint; then 5 trials each for pure single midpoint, pure dual midpoint, pure single up-
and-down, pure dual up-and-down, mixed single, and mixed dual; then 5 trials each for
mixed dual, mixed single, pure dual up-and-down, pure single up-and-down, pure dual
midpoint, pure single midpoint. Participants were encouraged to take breaks between
blocks (i.e., each set of one type of trials). All participants were tested in a single session,
All response time analyses were conducted on correct responses only. Reaction
times of 100 ms or less were considered anticipatory; the corresponding data were
removed from the data set (this concerned 0.1% of the responses of younger adults, and
0.4% of the responses of older adults). For the analysis of variance, median RTs were
used rather than means, because these are less influenced by skew and outlying values.
distributions. This model was chosen because it is the most commonly used model in the
decomposition of response times (e.g., Van Zandt, 2000). Briefly, the ex-Gaussian model
assumes that each response time can be represented as the sum of a normally distributed
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 12
random variable and an independent exponentially distributed random variable. The ex-
Gaussian distribution has three constituents: mu and sigma are the mean and standard
deviation, respectively, of the normal distribution and tau is the mean of the exponential
distribution. Mu and sigma determine the location of the leading edge of the distribution;
tau reflects slow responses at the tail of the distribution (the skew). This decomposition
provides more information from the set of response times than the summary measures of
mean and variance (note that the observed mean of the distribution equals the sum of mu
and tau; its variance equals the sum of sigma-squared and tau-squared). While it is naive
to assume that the components of the ex-Gaussian distribution will map directly onto
particular stages of processing (e.g., Hockley, 1984; Hohle, 1965; Luce, 1986), it has
matched controls, Leth-Steenen, King Elbaz, & Douglas, 2000; examining developmental
differences, Leth-Steenen, King Elbaz, & Douglas, 2000; and studying age differences in
the adult portion of the lifespan, Molenaar & Van der Molen, 1994; Spieler et al., 1996).
The algorithm for fitting the ex-Gaussian model to the response time distributions
Heathcote, Brown, and Mewhort (2002). Monte Carlo simulation has indicated that this
algorithm is more efficient and less biased that any other method currently available.
Because QMLE can be vulnerable to extreme values, we truncated the data set at the
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 13
97.5th percentile; in practice, this amounted to discarding response times longer than 7 s.
This concerned 1.11% of the data of the young and 4.25% of the data of the old.
Results
with focus switching (single vs. dual), and task switching (pure vs. mixed) as within-
subject factors, and age category (younger vs. older) as the between-subject factor. Only
the main effects were significant: single trials were executed faster than dual trials, F (1,
47) = 75.71, MSE = 118,362.33; pure trials were executed faster than mixed trials, F (1,
47) = 65.92, MSE = 39,470.27, and older adults were slower than younger adults, F (1,
47) = 34.19, MSE = 1,600,682.37. None of the interaction terms reached significance, all
Fs < 1.
estimates were not independent: The two Gaussian components (mu and sigma) were
highly positively correlated (median r = .87), mu and tau tended to have a moderately
For the mu parameter (the mean of the Gaussian component), all three main
effects were significant. Single trials yielded lower values of mu than dual trials, F (1, 47)
= 36.92, MSE = 284,349.01. Pure trials yielded lower values of mu than mixed trials.
Older adults had higher mu values than younger adults, F (1, 47) = 27.18, MSE =
1,160,573.06. None of the interactions terms reached significance, all Fs < 2.03.
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 14
For the sigma parameter (the standard deviation of the Gaussian component), only
the main effects of focus switching and age were significant in the expected direction.
Single trials yielded lower values of sigma than dual trials, F (1, 47) = 31.30, MSE =
66,576.83, and older adults had higher values of sigma than younger adults, F (1, 47) =
4.95, MSE = 153,509.86. There was a significant main effect of task switching, F (1, 47)
= 9.52, MSE = 13,751.78, but this went in the opposite direction from what would be
expected: Mixed trials yielded smaller values of sigma than pure trials. This effect was
rather small (367 ms vs. 315 ms). None of the interaction terms reached significance, all
Fs < 1.
For the tau parameter (the mean of the exponential component), the main effects
of focus switching and age reached significance. Dual trials yielded higher values of tau
than single trials, F (1, 47) = 15.66, MSE = 71,298.50, and older adults had higher values
of tau than younger adults, F (1, 47) = 26.09, MSE = 91,451.45. Task switching
interacted with focus switching; the increase in tau due to focus switching was larger in
pure trials (206 ms) than in mixed trials (96 ms). All other effects failed to reach
Accuracy analysis
focus switching (single vs. dual), and task switching (pure vs. mixed) as within-subject
factors, and age category (younger vs. older) as the between-subject factor. All main
effects were significant: single trials yielded higher accuracy than dual trials, F (1, 47) =
68.49, MSE = 0.003; pure trials yielded higher accuracy than mixed trials, F (1, 47) =
5.98, MSE = 0.001, and older adults had lower accuracy overall than younger adults, F
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 15
(1, 47) = 9.53, MSE = 0.009. Only the interaction between age and focus switching
reached significance, F (1, 47) = 5.94, MSE = 0.003; all other F < 1.44.
Costs were calculated as difference scores (i.e., [dual trials – single trials] for
focus switching, and [mixed trials - pure trials] for task switching). The correlation
between focus-switching cost and task-switching cost was not significant (.19) for
response time; for accuracy, however, the correlation was reliable (.56).
Discussion
that the continuous calculation task would reveal a focus-switching cost in both response
times and accuracy. Second, we hypothesized that this focus-switching cost would be
larger in older adults than in younger adults in terms of accuracy of responses, but not in
terms of response times. Third, we hypothesized that the focus-switching process would
be independent from the task-switching process. Our research yielded positive evidence
calculation task. This cost takes the form, first, of slower response times, and second, of
decreased accuracy. The best estimate of this cost is obtained by comparing the dual
condition with the single condition within the pure (i.e., non-task-switch) conditions in
the younger adults (i.e., the population most often used in cognitive experiments). The
focus-switching requirement increased these response times from 1,275 ms to 1,898 ms,
or by 623 ms. This is arguably a very substantial cost. In the present study, the global
task-switching requirement raised response times from 1,275 ms to 1,494 ms, or a 219 ms
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 16
increase. The focus-switching effect is therefore almost three times as large as the already
large global task-switching effect. Focus switching decreased accuracy from 98% to
93%, or by 5%; in comparison, task switching decreased accuracy by 0.5%. These results
confirm both the existence of the focus-switching process and its importance.
We should point out that alternative accounts of these data are possible. One is
that the focus-switch cost is not related to retrieval, but that it is a function of working
memory load. Previous research (Verhaeghen & Basak, in press; Voigt & Hagendorf,
2002), however, casts serious doubt on this alternative hypothesis. In the Verhaeghen and
Basak study, increases in working load beyond two items did not produce further RT
costs in younger adults, and only slight costs in older adults. Voigt and Hagendorf clearly
showed that focus-switching costs are sensitive to the retrieval demands of the task.
Another possibility is that the RT cost is due to a speed-accuracy trade-off, that is,
participants slow down their responses in order to retain an acceptable level of accuracy.
Correlational analysis shows that this is unlikely. The correlation between the cost in RT
and the costs in accuracy is negative (-.31), indicating that individuals who slow down
most due to the focus switch are also more likely to have the largest decreases in
accuracy.
Second, we found, as predicted, that the focus-switching cost was larger for older
adults than for younger adults in the accuracy domain, but not the response time domain.
This result replicates earlier findings with the identity judgment N-Back task
(Verhaeghen & Basak, in press, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2). The previous results
were obtained with a much easier task, namely identity judgment, and were ascribed to
item interference in the zone of working memory outside the focus of attention. The
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 17
findings of the present study are consistent with this interpretation. It is important to note,
however, that accuracy was high for both older and younger adults throughout, and it is
possible that the interaction was entirely due to a ceiling effect for the single trials. Three
arguments plead against this interpretation. First, in our opinion, the ceiling effect is not a
psychometric artifact, but it is theoretically meaningful. That is, in the pure, single
condition, we basically ask our participants if they can retrieve an item just seen on the
screen. Performance on this task should be errorless. Therefore, very high accuracy in the
pure, single condition is not an indication of failings of the experimenter to elicit a range
are two empirical reasons to trust the findings as useful rather than artifactual. First, we
ceiling, that is, with scores of 99% correct or more in the single, pure trials. We were left
with 6 younger adults and 13 older adults; the 6 selected younger adults scored 97%
correct on single, pure trials and 93% on dual, pure trials; the 13 selected older adults
scored 96% and 86%, respectively. Consequently, this selected sample yielded the same
result as the full sample: a larger focus-switch-related drop in accuracy in older adults
than in younger adults. Second, the correlation between the drop in accuracy due to task
switching and the drop in accuracy due to focus switching was relatively high (.56). If the
very high accuracy in the single, pure trials masked a higher level of true performance,
neither the focus-switch switch cost nor the task-switch cost would be meaningful
Third, we indeed found evidence for the independence of focus switching from
global task switching. The evidence we uncovered is threefold. First, the costs in
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 18
response times for the two processes are correlated only slightly (.19), and this
correlation did not reach significance. This indicates that the underlying processes must
switching and task-switching costs in the accuracy domain, suggesting that a more
general mechanism might drive the information loss associated with the cost. The
connecting mechanism might be interference. In focus switching, the item stored away
outside the focus probably receives interference from the item currently processed (see
Verhaeghen, Cerella, & Basak, 2003, for a more comprehensive take on this issue).
Likewise, it has been shown that in task switching, the two mental sets for the tasks
compete for activation and interfere with each other (e.g., Allport & Wylie, 2000).
Second, we found differential age effects for focus switching versus global task
switching. The former process is age-sensitive in the accuracy domain but not the
response time domain; the latter turned out not to be age-sensitive in either the accuracy
or response time domain. The age-constancy of global task switching may be somewhat
surprising, given that age effects in response times usually do emerge in this aspect of
task switching (see Wasylyshyn, Verhaeghen, & Sliwinski, 2004, for a meta-analysis).
Recent research, however, has shown that when task switching is highly predictable and
cued, as is the case in our experiment, age differences may disappear (Kray, Li,
Lindenberger, 2002). We note that the failure to obtain age effects in global task
switching is not due to a failure to obtain a global task switching cost itself; such an
effect was observed for both response times and accuracy. We also note that the observed
age-constancy is not due to lack of statistical power: All F values for the relevant age by
Third, there were differential effects of focus switching and task switching in the
increase in each of the parameters, indicating that both the leading edge and the
dispersion (including the skew) of the distribution was affected. This can be contrasted
with the effect of task switching, which produced an increase in mu, or the leading edge
of the distribution, only. Sigma decreased slightly (by about 50 ms) when the task
switching requirement was added, and tau remained stable. Thus, task switching has the
effect of shifting the distribution along the horizontal axis, without changing its
ex-Gaussian parameters and cognitive processes are seldom obtained, and we were using
the decomposition primarily for the purpose of examining possible dissociations. Some
tentative conclusions can be drawn, however. The global task-switching results suggest
that global task switching works additively (see also Wasylyshyn, Verhaeghen &
Sliwinski, 2004), that is, the result can be explained by the insertion of a set of normally
distributed processes that do not interfere with the computational requirements of the
continuous calculation task itself. Such an insertion only affects the leading edge of the
distribution, and not its shape. The focus-switching results cannot be explained through
such a mechanism. Rather, the results suggest either that an additional ex-Gaussian
process is added to the original distribution, or that several of the main component
processes of the original distribution are slowed by a multiplicative factor. Given that the
increase in mu seems to be proportionally larger than the increase in tau, the effects are
larger for the normally distributed processes than for the exponentially distributed
component processes. The underadditive interaction between focus switching and task
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 20
switching in the tau parameter suggests that at least part of the components involved in
both processes can be executed in parallel. Alternatively, it is possible that task switching
is simply easier to perform in the dual condition than in the single condition because in
the former, screen location works as an external cue for task switching.
demonstrated that focus switching is distinct from task switching, and that focus
References
and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes:
Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 35-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Birren, J. E. (1965). Age changes in speed of behavior: Its central nature and
physiological correlates. In A. T. Welford & J. E. Birren (Eds.), Behavior, aging, and the
W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd. ed., pp. 201-221). San
24, 87-185.
reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-185.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging:
a review and a new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and
motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 22
Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian
arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention & Performance, XVII,
9, 394-401.
Kray, J., Li, K. Z. H., & Lindenberger, U. (2002). Age-related changes in task-
switching components: The role of task uncertainty. Brain and Cognition, 49, 363-381.
Leth-Steenen, C., King Elbaz, Z., Douglas, V. I. (2000). Mean response times,
variability, and skew in the responding of ADHD children: A response time distributional
Li, S.-C., Lindenberger, U., & Frensch, P. (2000). Unifying cognitive aging: From
Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (1993). Sequential and coordinative complexity: Age-
Mayr, U., Spieler, D. H., & Kliegl, R. (2001). Aging and executive control. New
York: Routledge.
McElree, B.M., & Dosher, B.A. (1989). Serial position and set size in short term
118, 346-373.
between global and local trend hypotheses of life-span changes in processing speed. Acta
Perfect, T. J., & Maylor, E. A. (2000). Rejecting the dull hypothesis: The relation
between method and theory in cognitive aging. In: T. J. Perfect & E. A. Maylor (Eds),
108.
Rogers R. D., & Monsell S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple
Holland.
NJ: Erlbaum.
for age-related effects on multiple cognitive variables? Psychology and Aging, 18, 91-
110.
healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with Dementia of the Alzheimer’s
type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 461-
479.
654.
Sternberg, S. (2001) Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of pure
processes in rapid visual, and memory search: An evaluative review. Perception &
Verhaeghen, P., & Basak, C. (in press). Aging and switching of the focus of
attention in working memory: Results from a modified N-Back task. Quarterly Journal of
How to expand the focus of serial attention from one to four items, in ten hours or less.
Verhaeghen, P., Cerella, J., Bopp, K. L., & Basak, C. (in press). Aging and
newly identified process of focus switching. In R. W. Engle, G. Sedek, U. von Hecker, &
Press.
Verhaeghen, P., & De Meersman, L. (1998b). Aging and the Stroop effect: A
relations in adulthood: Estimates of linear and non-linear age effects and structural
Verhaeghen, P., Steitz, D. W., Sliwinski, M. J., & Cerella, J. (2003). Aging and
Voigt, S. & Hagendorf, H. (2002). The role of task context for component
Washylyshyn, C., Verhaeghen, P., & Sliwinski, M. J. (2003). Aging and task
Woltz, D. J., Bell, B. G., Kyllonen, P. C., & Gardner, M. K. (1996). Memory for
order of operations in the acquisition and transfer of sequential cognitive skills. Journal of
Woltz, D. J., Gardner, M. K., & Bell, B. G. (2000). Negative transfer errors in
Author notes
Paul Verhaeghen and William J. Hoyer, Department of Psychology and Center for Health
and Behavior, Syracuse University. This research was supported by research grant
AG11451 and AG16201. We thank Korena Onyper for assistance with data collection,
Center for Health and Behavior, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse,
Tables
Table 1.
Examples of a single trial (i.e., 10 items) for each of the four conditions in the
experiment. In reality, stimuli were shown one at a time, in a reading pattern (left to right,
then on the next line, etc.). The participant’s answer is indicated between brackets. The
first row was presented at a 2 s/item pace; presentation of subsequent stimuli was
participant-paced. When the stimulus was projected in yellow (here simulated by the
default font), the midpoint rule had to be used; when the stimulus was projected in blue
Conditions
Single, pure Single, Mixed Dual, pure Dual, mixed
1 5 1 6 1 6
3 (2) 3 (4) 3 (2) 8 (7) 3 (2) 5 (4)
4 (3) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (6) 4 (3) 3 (2)
1 (2) 4 (3) 1 (2) 4 (5) 1 (2) 3 (4)
4 (3) 2 (1) 4 (3) 3 (4) 4 (3) 5 (6)
5 (4) 3 (2)
6 (5) 3 (4)
7 (6) 6 (5)
4 (5) 4 (3)
7 (6) 5 (4)
Focus switch No No Yes Yes
Task switch No Yes No Yes
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 29
Figure captions
Figure 1. An illustration of the expected effects. The top of the figure illustrates the two-
tier structure of working memory (McElree, 2001): Within working memory, only the
single item held in the focus-of-attention (FoA) is immediately accessible. If more than
two items are present in working memory, item swapping becomes necessary before the
second element can be processed. The bottom of the figure shows data obtained in a
Back task: a step function in response times (the size of the step defines the focus-
Figure 2. Response time (correct trials only) and accuracy data, separated by condition
and group. Focus-switch costs are calculated as the difference in performance between
single and dual trials; task-switch costs as the difference in performance between pure
group. Focus-switch costs are calculated as the difference in performance between single
and dual trials; task-switch costs as the difference in performance between pure and
FoA
X
X
X X
2000 1
1800 0.95
1600 0.9
1400 0.85
Percent correct
Response time
1200 0.8
0.75
1000
0.7
800
0.65
600
0.6 Younger
400 Older
0.55
200
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
N-Back value N-back value
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 31
3500
3000
2500
Response time
2000
1500
1000
500 Younger
Older
0
Pure, Pure, Mixed, Mixed,
single dual single dual
0.95
Percent correct
0.9
0.85
0.8
Younger
Older
0.75
Pure, Pure, Mixed, Mixed,
single dual single dual
Aging, Focus Switching, Task Switching – p. 32
2500 Mu parameter
2000
Parameter value
1500
1000
500
Younger
Older
0
Pure, Pure, Mixed, Mixed,
single dual single dual
2500
Sigma parameter Younger
Older
2000
Parameter value
1500
1000
500
2500
Tau parameter
2000
Parameter value
1500
1000
500
Younger
Older
0