Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 407–417 | Cite as

Diversity, dispersion and inconsistency of reaction time measures: effects of age and task complexity

Original Articles

Abstract

Background and aims: Performance variability of reaction time is regarded as an important parameter for cognitive functioning with aging. We investigated three types of variability, diversity (or variability between persons), dispersion (variability across trials within one task) and inconsistency (variability across testing occasions), while distinguishing between decision time and movement time and evaluating performance across comparable complexity levels. Methods: A single stratified reaction time test based on tasks with increasing complexity was used to evaluate inter- and intra-performance variability of 27 older (age 75±5 years) and 27 younger (age 29±7 years) participants, subdividing reaction time into decision and movement components. Results: There were consistent age and complexity differences for all variability types in our sample. When controlling for processing speed, which was slower in the older group, variability across age groups and task complexity tended to diminish and a more complex picture emerged. The elderly group showed a higher diversity of all reaction time measures, except for movement time, and a higher dispersion of decision time. Task complexity significantly affected the diversity of movement and overall reaction times and the dispersion of all reaction time measures, except for movement time. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of variability in cognitive functioning; it may be an important phenomenon for study and a useful indicator for cognitive deterioration. The reaction time test we propose is easy to use and can be applied in clinical practice.

Keywords

Aging dispersion diversity inconsistency performance variability reaction time 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Madden DJ. Speed and timing of behavioural processes. In Birren JE, Schaie KW, Eds. Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2002: 288–312.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Raedt R, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I. The relationship between cognitive/neuropsychological factors and car driving performance in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 1664–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts RD, Pallier G. Individual differences in performance on elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs): lawful vs. problematic parameters. J Gen Psychol 2001; 128: 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Panek PE. Age differences in perceptual style, selective attention, and perceptual-motor time. Exp Aging Res 1978; 4: 377–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cerella J. Information processing rates in the elderly. Psychol Bull 1985; 98: 67–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerella J. Aging and information processing rate. In Birren JE, Schaie KW. Eds. Handbook of the Psychology and Aging. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1990: 201–21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salthouse TA. Speed of behaviour and its implications for cognition. In Birren JE, Schaie KW, Eds. Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985: 400–26.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hale S, Myerson J, Smith GA, Poon LW. Age, variability, and speed: between-subjects diversity. Psychol Aging 1988; 3: 407–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nesselroade JR, Salthouse TA. Methodological and theoretical implications of intraindividual variability in perceptual-motor performance. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2004; 59B: 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen H. What cognitive changes can be expected with normal ageing? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2001; 35: 768–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hultsch DF, MacDonald WS, Dixon RA. Variability in reaction time performance of younger and older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2002; 57b: P101–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morse CK. Does variability increase with age? An archival study of cognitive measures. Psychol Aging 1993; 8: 156–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rikkert MGMO, van’t Hof MA, Hoefnagels WHL. Dispersion measures in biomedical research on ageing: nuances in the meaning of variability. Age Ageing 1997; 26: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shamni P, Bosman E, Stuss DT. Aging and variability in performance. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 1998; 5: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stuss DT, Pogue J, Buckle L, Bonder J. Characterization of variability of performance in patients with traumatic brain injury: variability and consistency on reaction time tests. Neuropsychology 1994; 8: 316–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nesselroade JR. Interindividual differences in intraindividual change. In Collins LM, Horn JL, Eds. Best Methods for the Analysis of Change. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1991: 92–105.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    West R, Murphy KJ, Armillio ML, Craik FIM, Stuss DT. Lapses of intention and performance variability reveal age-related increases in fluctuations in executive control. Brain Cogn 2002; 49: 402–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabbitt P, Osman P, Moore B, Stollery B. There are stable individual differences in performance variability, both from moment to moment and from day to day. Q J Exp Psychol 2001; 54A: 981–1003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hultsch DF, MacDonald SWS. Intraindividual variability in performance as a theoretical window onto cognitive aging. In Dixon RA, Bäckman L, Nilsson LG, Eds. New Frontiers in Cognitive Aging, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004: 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bunce D, MacDonald SWS, Hultsch DF. Inconsistency in serial choice decision and motor reaction times dissociate in younger and older adults. Brain Cogn 2004, 56: 320–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koenig HG, Cohen HJ, Blazer DG, Meador KG, Westlund R. A brief depression scale for use in the medically ill. Int J Psychiatry Med 1992; 22: 183–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosen W, Moh, R, Davis K. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged — the index of ADL- a standardised measure of biological and psychological functioning. J Am Med Assoc 1963; 185: 914–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Zomeren AH. Reaction time and attention after closed head injury. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McDowd JM, Birren JE. Aging and attentional processes. In Birren JE, Schaie KW. Eds. Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. San Diego, CA: Academic Press 1990: 222–33.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anderson JR. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York: WH Freeman & Co., 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Zomeren AH, Deelman BG. Long-term recovery of visual reaction time after closed head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1978; 41: 452–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working memory, comprehension and aging: a review and a new view. In Bower GH, ed. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Academic Press 1988, 22: 193–225.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Christensen H, Mackinnon AJ, Jorm AF, Henderson AS, Scott LR, Korten AE. Age differences and interindividual variation in cognition in community-dwelling elderly. Psychol Aging 1994; 9: 381–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Christensen H, Mackinnon AJ, Korten AE, et al. An analysis of diversity in the cognitive performance of elderly community dwellers: individual differences in change scores as a function of age. Psychol Aging 1999; 14: 365–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lindenberger U, Baltes PB. Intellectual functioning in old age and very old age: cross-sectional results from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychol Aging 1997; 12: 410–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stollery BT. Effects of 50 HZ electric currents on vigilance and concentration. Br J Ind Med 1987; 44: 111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts RD, Stankov L. Individual differences in speed of mental processing and human cognitive abilities: toward a taxonomic model. Learn Individ Differ 1999; 11: 1–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li SC, Lindenberger U. Cross-level unification: a computational exploration of the link between deterioration of neurotransmitter systems and deterioration of cognitive abilities in old age. In: Nilsson LG. Markowitsch H, eds. Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber, 1999: 103–46.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bunce DJ, Warr P, Cochrane T. Blocks in choice responding as a function of age and physical fitness. Psychol Aging 2001; 8: 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rabbitt P, Phillips S. Error-detection and correction latencies as a function of S-R compatibility. Q J Exp Psychol 1967; 19: 37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    MacDonald SWS, Hultsch DF, Dixon DA. Performance variability is related to change in cognition: evidence from the Victoria Longitudinal Study. Psychol Aging 2003; 18: 510–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internal Publishing Switzerland 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GerontologyFree University of Brussels (VUB)Belgium
  2. 2.Gerontology and Geriatrics, Academic HospitalFree University of Brussels (VUB)BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyGhent UniversityBelgium

Personalised recommendations