Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Features of the Inhibition of Distracting Stimuli in Mild Cognitive Impairment

  • Published:
Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Objectives. To study the effectiveness of the inhibition of interfering visual stimuli using a flanker task in groups of cognitively healthy young, middle-aged, and elderly people and patients with mild cognitive impairment. Materials and methods. The rate and accuracy of responses were analyzed and a diffusion model of reaction times which extracts components of reaction times associated with perceptual and motor response processes, stimulus processing speed, and conservativeness (caution) in response selection was developed. Results and conclusions. Significant reductions in the rate and accuracy of responses with age were demonstrated, especially in the group of patients with mild cognitive impairment. Decreased efficacy in inhibiting distracting stimuli was particularly marked for noncongruent distractors in patients. Analysis of the parameters of the diffusion model demonstrated increases in the duration of perceptual and motor processes with age, decreases in patients’ processing speed, and increases in the conservativeness of responses in patients in noncongruent tests. These results point to combined influences of the processes of normal and pathological aging on cognitive functioning in mild cognitive impairment. Slowing of the perceptual-motor components of reaction times reflects processes of normal cognitive aging, while slowing of processing speed (in the presence of any distractor, including congruent) characterizes pathological cognitive aging. Differential diagnosis of normal and pathological cognitive changes can be obtained using data based on analysis of reaction time components. We conclude that consideration of conservativeness in response selection is important as a factor slowing reaction times in pathological and normal cognitive aging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. D. Lezak, “the problem of assessing executive functions,” Int. J. Psychol., 17, No. 1–4, 281–297 (1982), https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598208247445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. A. Diamond, “Executive Functions,” Ann. Rev. Psychol., 64, No. 1, 135–168 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. L. H. Phillips and J. D. Henry, V. “Adult aging and executive functioning,” in: Neuropsychology, Neurology, and Cognition. Executive Functions and the Frontal Lobes: A Lifespan Perspective, V. Anderson, R. Jacobs, and P. J. Anderson (eds.), Taylor & Francis (2008), pp. 57–79.

  4. K. Daniels, J. Toth, and L. E. Jacoby, “The aging of executive functions,” in: Lifespan Cognition: Mechanisms of Change, E. Bialystok and F. I. M. Craik (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York (2006), pp. 96–111.

    Google Scholar 

  5. N. P. Friedman and A. Miyake, “The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: a latent-variable analysis,” J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 133, No. 1, 101–135 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. B. A. Eriksen and C. W. Eriksen, “Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task,” Percept. Psychophys., 16, 143–149 (1974), https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03203267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. P. Verhaeghen and L. De Meersman, “Aging and the Stroop effect: a meta-analysis,” Psychol. Aging, 13, No. 1, 120–126 (1998), https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.1.120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. P. E. Wais and A. Gazzaley, “External distraction impairs categorization performance in older adults,” Psychol. Aging, 29, No. 3, 666–671 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037617.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Ratcliff, “A theory of memory retrieval,” Psychol. Rev., 85, 59–108 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. R. Ratcliff and G. McKoon, “The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks,” Neural Comput., 20, 873–922 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. A. Voss and J. Voss, “Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis,” Behav. Res. Meth., 39, No. 4, 767–775 (2007), https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. R. C. Petersen and J. Touchon, “Consensus on mild cognitive impairment: EADC-ADCS,” Research and Practice in Alzheimer’s Disease, 10, 38–46 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. F. Folstein, S. E. Folstein, and P. R. McHugh, “’Mini-mental state’: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician,” J. Psychiatr. Res., 12, No. 3, 189–198 (1975), https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. J. C. Morris, “The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), current version and scoring rules,” Neurology, 43, No. 11, 2412–2412 (1993), https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. B. Reisberg, S. H. Ferris, M. J. Leon, and T. Crook, “The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia,” Am. J. Psychiatry, 139, No. 9, 1136–1139 (1982), https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.139.9.1136.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. A. Rey-Mermetl and M. Gade, “Inhibition in aging: What is preserved? What declines? A meta-analysis.” Psychon. Bull. Rev., 25, No. 5, 1695–1716 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1384-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. L. Ossher, K. E. Flegal, and C. Lustig, “Everyday memory errors in older adults,” Neuropsychol. Dev. Cogn. B Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn., 20, No. 2, 220–242 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2012.690365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. K. C. Chen, C. Y. Weng, S. Hsiao, et al., “Cognitive decline and slower reaction time in elderly individuals with mild cognitive impairment,” Psychogeriatrics, 17, 364–370 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. J. C. Weeks and L. Hasher, “The disruptive – and beneficial – effects of distraction on older adults’ cognitive performance,” Front. Psychol., 5, 133 (2014), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. A. Guarino, F. Favieri, I. Boncompagni, et al., “Executive functions in Alzheimer disease: A systematic review,” Front, Aging Neurosci., 10, 437 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. F. Collette, C. Schmidt, C. Scherrer, et al., “Specificity of inhibitory deficits in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease,” Neurobiol. Aging, 30, 875–889 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.09.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. C. Orr and R. Hester, Error-related anterior cingulated cortex activity and the prediction of conscious error awareness, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 6, 177 (2012), https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. E. Davelaar, “When the ignored gets bound: Sequential effects in the flanker task,” Front Psychol., 3, 552 (2013), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00552.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

    B. B. Velichkovsky, D. V. Tatarinov & A. A. Khlebnikova

  2. Moscow Psychoanalytical Institute, Moscow, Russia

    B. B. Velichkovsky

  3. Scientific Center for Mental Health, Moscow, Russia

    I. F. Roshchina, N. D. Selezneva & S. I. Gavrilova

  4. Moscow State Psychological and Pedagogical University, Moscow, Russia

    I. F. Roshchina

Authors
  1. B. B. Velichkovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. V. Tatarinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. A. Khlebnikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I. F. Roshchina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. D. Selezneva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. I. Gavrilova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. B. Velichkovsky.

Additional information

Translated from Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii imeni S. S. Korsakova, Vol. 121, No. 1, Iss. 1, pp. 71–76, January, 2021.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Velichkovsky, B.B., Tatarinov, D.V., Khlebnikova, A.A. et al. Features of the Inhibition of Distracting Stimuli in Mild Cognitive Impairment. Neurosci Behav Physi 51, 1216–1221 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-021-01182-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-021-01182-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation