Psychological Research

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 401–410 | Cite as

Aging increases distraction by auditory oddballs in visual, but not auditory tasks

  • Alicia Leiva
  • Fabrice B. R. Parmentier
  • Pilar Andrés
Original Article

Abstract

Aging is typically considered to bring a reduction of the ability to resist distraction by task-irrelevant stimuli. Yet recent work suggests that this conclusion must be qualified and that the effect of aging is mitigated by whether irrelevant and target stimuli emanate from the same modalities or from distinct ones. Some studies suggest that aging is especially sensitive to distraction within-modality while others suggest it is greater across modalities. Here we report the first study to measure the effect of aging on deviance distraction in cross-modal (auditory–visual) and uni-modal (auditory–auditory) oddball tasks. Young and older adults were asked to judge the parity of target digits (auditory or visual in distinct blocks of trials), each preceded by a task-irrelevant sound (the same tone on most trials—the standard sound—or, on rare and unpredictable trials, a burst of white noise—the deviant sound). Deviant sounds yielded distraction (longer response times relative to standard sounds) in both tasks and age groups. However, an age-related increase in distraction was observed in the cross-modal task and not in the uni-modal task. We argue that aging might affect processes involved in the switching of attention across modalities and speculate that this may due to the slowing of this type of attentional shift or a reduction in cognitive control required to re-orient attention toward the target’s modality.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a research Grant (PSI-2009-08427) and Plan E from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the Campus of International Excellence Program from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, and a Ramón y Cajal Fellowship (RYC-2007-00701), all awarded to Fabrice Parmentier; as well as a F. P. U. fellowship (AP2010-0021) from the Spanish Ministry of Education awarded to Alicia Leiva, and a research Grant (PSI2010-21609-C02-02) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation awarded to Pilar Andrés.

References

  1. Alain, C., & Woods, D. L. (1999). Age-related changes in processing auditory stimuli during visual attention: evidence for deficits in inhibitory control and sensory memory. Psychology and Aging, 14, 507–519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrés, P., Guerrini, C., Phillips, L. H., & Perfect, T. J. (2008). Differential effects of aging on executive and automatic inhibition. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 101–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrés, P., Parmentier, F. B. R., & Escera, C. (2006). The effect of age on involuntary capture of attention by irrelevant sounds: a test of the frontal hypothesis of aging. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2564–2568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaman, C. P. (2005). Irrelevant sound effects amongst younger and older adults: objective findings and subjective insights. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2007). Equivalent irrelevant-sound effects for old and young adults. Memory and Cognition, 35, 352–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Belleville, S., Rouleau, N., Van der Linden, M., & Collette, F. (2003). Effect of manipulation and irrelevant noise on working memory capacity of patients with Alzheimer’s dementia. Neuropsychology, 17, 69–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bendixen, A., Grimm, S., Deouell, L. Y., Wetzel, N., Mädebach, A., & Schröger, E. (2010). The time-course of auditory and visual distraction effects in a new crossmodal paradigm. Neuropsychologia, 48, 2131–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bendixen, A., Roeber, U., & Schröger, E. (2007). Regularity extraction and application in dynamic auditory stimulus sequences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1664–1677.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Berti, S. (2008). Cognitive control after distraction: event-related brain potentials (ERPs) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. Psychophysiology, 45, 608–620.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Berti, S. (2012). Automatic processing of rare versus novel auditory stimuli reveal different mechanisms of auditory change detection. NeuroReport, 23, 441–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Berti, S., Grunwald, M., & Schröger, E. (2013). Age dependent changes of distractibility and reorienting of attention revisited: an event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1491, 156–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2001). A comparison of auditory and visual distraction effects: behavioural and event-related indices. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2544–2590.Google Scholar
  13. Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2003). Working memory controls involuntary attention switching: evidence from an auditory distraction paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 1119–1122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2004). Distraction effects in vision: behavioral and event-related potential indices. NeuroReport, 15, 665–669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2006). Visual distraction: a behavioral and event-related brain potential study in humans. NeuroReport, 17, 151–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 859–873.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Boll, S., & Berti, S. (2009). Distraction of task-relevant information processing by irrelevant changes in auditory, visual, and bimodal stimulus features: a behavioral and event-related potential study. Psychophysiology, 46, 645–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Colcombe, S. J., Kramer, A. F., Erickson, K. I., & Scalf, P. (2005). The implications of cortical recruitment and brain morphology for individual differences in inhibitory function in aging humans. Psychology and Aging, 20, 363–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Connelly, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Age and reading: the impact of distraction. Psychology and Aging, 6, 533–541.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Einstein, G. O., Earles, J. L., & Collins, H. M. (2002). Gaze aversion: spared inhibition for visual distraction in older adults. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Enmarker, I. (2004). The effects of meaningful irrelevant speech and road traffic noise on teachers’ attention, episodic and semantic memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 393–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Escera, C., Alho, K., Schröger, E., & Winkler, I. (2000). Involuntary attention and distractibility as evaluated with event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 5, 151–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 590–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedman, P., Cycowic, Y. M., & Gaeta, H. (2001). Novelty P3: an event-related brain potential ERP sign of the brain’s evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 25, 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Getzmann, S., Falkenstein, M., & Gajewski, P. D. (2013a). Long-term cardiovascular fitness is associated with auditory attentional control in old adults: neuro-behavioral evidence. PLoS One, 8(9), e74539. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074539.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Getzmann, S., Gajewski, P. D., & Falkenstein, M. (2013b). Does age increase auditory distraction? Electrophysiological correlates of high and low performance in seniors. Neurobiology of Aging, 34, 1952–1962.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Getzmann, S., Gajewski, P. D., Hengstler, J. G., Falkenstein, M., & Beste, C. (2013c). BDNF Val66Met polymorphism and goal-directed behavior in healthy elderly—evidence from auditory distraction. Neuroimage, 64, 290–298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Grillon, C., Courchesne, E., Ameli, R., Geyer, M., & Braff, D. L. (1990). Increased distractibility in schizophrenic patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 47, 171–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Guerreiro, M. J. S., Murphy, D. R., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2010). The role of sensory modality in age-related distraction: a critical review and a renewed view. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 975–1022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Guerreiro, M. J. S., Murphy, D. R., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2013). Making sense of age-related distractibility: the critical role of sensory modality. Acta Psychologica, 142, 184–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Guerreiro, M. J. S., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: evidence for age-dependent and age-independent cross-modal distraction. Psychology and Aging, 26, 415–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Horváth, J., Czigler, I., Birkás, E., Winkler, I., & Gervai, J. (2009). Age-related differences in distraction and reorientation in an auditory task. Neurobiology of Aging, 30, 1157–1172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Horváth, J., Winkler, I., & Bendixen, A. (2008). Do N1/MMN, P3a, and RON form a strongly coupled chain reflecting the three stages of auditory distraction. Biological Psychology, 79, 139–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hugenschmidt, C. E., Mozolic, J. L., Tan, H., Kraft, R. A., & Laurienti, P. J. (2009). Age-related increase in cross-sensory noise in resting and steady-state cerebral perfusion. Brain Topography, 21, 241–251.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2005). Auditory attentional capture during serial recall—violations at encoding of an algorithm-based neural model. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 736–749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2007). Disruption of short-term memory by changing and deviant sounds—support for a duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1050–1061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones, D. M., Alford, D., Bridges, A., Tremblay, S., & Macken, W. J. (1999). Organizational factors in selective attention: the interplay of acoustic distinctiveness and auditory streaming in the irrelevant sound effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1993). Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: implications for phonological coding in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1995). Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: the role of spatial location and timing. Memory and Cognition, 21, 318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, D. M., Madden, C., & Miles, C. (1992). Privileged access by irrelevant speech to short-term memory: the role of changing state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 645–669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones, D. M., & Tremblay, S. (2000). Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 550–558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kray, J., Eppinger, B., & Mecklinger, A. (2005). Age differences in attentional control: an event-related potential approach. Psychophysiology, 42, 407–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Li, B., Parmentier, F. B. R., & Zhang, M. (2013). Behavioral distraction by auditory deviance is mediated by the sound’s informational value: evidence from an auditory discrimination task. Experimental Psychology, 60, 260–268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lobo, A., Ezquerra, J., Gómez Burgada, F., Sala, J. M., & Seva Díaz, A. (1979). El mini examen cognoscitivo: un test “sencillo”, práctico, para detectar alteraciones intelectuales en pacientes médicos. Actas Luso-Españolas de Neurología, Psiquiatría y Ciencias afines, 7, 189–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lustig, C., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. (2007). Inhibitory deficit theory: recent developments in a “new view”. In C. M. MacLeod & D. S. Gorfein (Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 145–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayas, J., Parmentier, F. B. R., Andrés, P., & Ballesteros, S. (2014). Plasticity of attentional functions in older adults after non-action video game training: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e92269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092269.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Maylor, E. A., & Lavie, N. (1998). The influence of perceptual load on age differences in selective attention. Psychology and Aging, 13, 563–573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Miles, E., Brown, R., & Poliakoff, E. (2011). Investigating the nature and time-course of the modality shift effect between vision and touch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 871–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Munka, L., & Berti, S. (2006). Examining task-dependencies of different attentional processes as reflected in the P3a and reorienting negativity components of the human event-related brain potential. Neuroscience Letters, 396, 177–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Murphy, D. R., McDowd, J. M., & Wilcox, K. A. (1999). Inhibition and aging: similarities between younger and older adults as revealed by the processing of unattended auditory information. Psychology and Aging, 14, 44–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Murphy, D., Pelletier, D., Bailey, H., & Howell, D. (2004). Inhibitory functioning in younger and older adults: differences according to modality when processing unattended auditory and visual information. Poster presented at the 10th Cognitive Aging Conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  53. Näätänen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2544–2590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Paavilainen, P., Arajärvi, P., & Takegata, R. (2007). Preattentive detection of nonsalient contingencies between auditory features. NeuroReport, 18, 159–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Paavilainen, P., Jaramillo, M., Näätänen, R., & Winkler, I. (1999). Neuronal populations in the human brain extracting invariant relationships from acoustic variance. Neuroscience Letters, 265, 179–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Paavilainen, P., Simola, J., Jaramillo, M., Näätänen, R., & Winkler, I. (2001). Preattentive extraction of abstract feature conjunctions from auditory stimulation as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN). Psychophysiology, 38, 359–365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Parmentier, F. B. R. (2008). Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty; the role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing. Cognition, 109, 345–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Parmentier, F. B. R. (2014). The cognitive determinants of behavioral distraction by deviant auditory stimuli: a review. Psychological Research, 78, 321–338. doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0534-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Parmentier, F., & Andrés, P. (2010). The involuntary capture of attention by sound: novelty and post-novelty distraction in young and older adults. Experimental Psychology, 57, 68–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Parmentier, F. B. R., Elford, G., Escera, C., Andrés, P., & SanMiguel, I. (2008). The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task. Cognition, 106, 408–432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Parmentier, F. B. R., Elsley, J. V., Andrés, P., & Barceló, F. (2011a). Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change. Cognition, 119, 374–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Parmentier, F. B. R., Elsley, J. V., & Ljungberg, J. K. (2010a). Behavioral distraction by auditory novelty is not only about novelty: the role of the distracter’s informational value. Cognition, 115, 504–511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Parmentier, F. B. R., & Hebrero, M. (2013). Cognitive control of involuntary distraction by deviant sound. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1635–1641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Parmentier, F. B. R., Ljungberg, J. K., Elsley, J. V., & Lindkvist, M. (2011b). A behavioral study of distraction by vibrotactile novelty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1134–1139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Parmentier, F. B. R., Maybery, M. T., & Elsley, J. V. (2010b). The involuntary capture of attention by novel feature pairings: a study of voice-location integration in auditory sensory memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Elsley, J. V. (2011c). Distraction by auditory novelty: the course and aftermath of novelty and semantic effects. Experimental Psychology, 58, 92–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Perez, L. (2014). A dual contribution to the involuntary semantic processing of unexpected spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pick, D. F., & Proctor, R. W. (1999). Age differences in the effects of irrelevant location information. In M. Scerbo & M. W. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation technology and human performance (pp. 258–261). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2128–2148.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Prakash, R. S., Erickson, K. I., Colcombe, S. J., Kim, J. S., Voss, M. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2009). Age related differences in the involvement of the prefrontal cortex in attentional control. Brain and Cognition, 71, 328–335.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Proctor, R. W., Pick, D. F., Vu, K. P. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2005). The enhanced Simon effect for older adults is reduced when the irrelevant location information is conveyed by an accessory stimulus. Acta Psychologica, 119, 21–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Rodway, P. (2005). The modality shift effect and the effectiveness of warning signals in different modalities. Acta Psychologica, 120, 199–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Roeber, U., Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2003a). Auditory distraction with different presentation rates: an event-related potential and behavioral study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 341–349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Roeber, U., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2003b). Auditory distraction by duration and location deviants: a behavioral and event-related potential study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 347–357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Rouleau, N., & Belleville, S. (1996). Irrelevant speech effect in aging: an assessment of inhibitory processes in working memory. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 51B, 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roye, A., Jacobsen, T., & Schröger, E. (2013). Discrimination of personally significant from nonsignificant sounds: a training study. Cognitive and Affective Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 930–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saarinen, J., Paavilainen, P., Schröger, E., Tervaniemi, M., & Näätänen, R. (1992). Representation of abstract stimulus attributes in human brain. NeuroReport, 3, 1149–1151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). General and specific speed mediation of adult age differences in memory. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Salthouse, T. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & McGuthry, K. E. (1998). Shared age-related influences on cognitive and noncognitive variables. Psychology and Aging, 13, 486–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Robertson, E. R., Mikels, J. A., Carstensen, L. L., & Gotlib, I. H. (2009). Selective attention to emotion in the aging brain. Psychology and Aging, 24, 519–529.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Schröger, E. (1996). A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 527–539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Schröger, E. (1997). On the detection of auditory deviations: a pre-attentive activation model. Psychophysiology, 34, 245–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Schröger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998). Attentional orienting and reorienting is indicated by human event-related brain potentials. NeuroReport, 9, 3355–3358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Neuropsychological perspectives on memory and cognitive decline in normal human aging. Seminars in the Neuroscience, 6, 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shomstein, S., & Yantis, S. (2004). Configural and contextual prioritization in object-based attention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 247–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Simon, J. R., & Pouraghabagher, A. R. (1978). The effect of aging on the stages of processing in a choice reaction time task. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 553–561.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Stevens, W. D., Hasher, L., Chiew, K. S., & Grady, C. L. (2008). A neural mechanism underlying memory failure in older adults. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 12820–12824.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Townsend, J., Adamo, M., & Haist, F. (2006). Changing channels: an fMRI study of aging and cross-modal attention shifts. NeuroImage, 31, 1682–1692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Turatto, M., Benso, F., Galfano, G., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Nonspatial attentional shifts between audition and vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 628–639.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Turatto, M., Galfano, G., Bridgeman, B., & Umiltà, C. (2004). Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 301–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Verleger, R. (2002). Aging and the Simon task. Psychophysiology, 39, 100–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Van Gerven, P. W. M., Meijer, W. A., Vermeeren, A., Vuurman, E. F., & Jolles, J. (2007). The irrelevant speech effect and the level of interference in aging. Experimental Aging Research, 33, 323–339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Gerven, P. W. M., & Murphy, D. R. (2010). Aging and distraction by irrelevant speech: does emotional valence matter? Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 65B, 667–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Zuijen, T., Sussman, E., Winkler, I., Näätänen, R., & Tervaniemi, M. (2005). Auditory organization of sound sequences by a temporal or numerical regularity—a mismatch study comparing musicians and nonmusicians. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 270–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. West, R., & Alain, C. (2000). Age-related decline in inhibitory control contributes to the increased Stroop effect observed in older adults. Psychophysiology, 37, 179–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Wetzel, N., Widmann, A., & Schröger, E. (2012). Distraction and facilitation—two faces of the same coin? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 664–674.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Winkler, I. (2007). Interpreting the mismatch negativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Woods, D. L. (1992). Auditory selective attention in middle-aged and elderly subjects: an event-related brain potential study. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 84, 456–468.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Wurm, L. H., Labouvie-Vief, G., Aycock, J., Rebucal, K. A., & Koch, H. E. (2004). Performance in auditory and visual emotional Stroop tasks: a comparison of older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 19, 523–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Yela, M., & Cordero, A. (2000). Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para ancianos. S.A.: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Leiva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabrice B. R. Parmentier
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pilar Andrés
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Research Institute for Health Sciences (iUNICS), Neuropsychology and Cognition Group, Ed. Guillem Cifre de ColonyaUniversity of the Balearic IslandsPalmaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Palma (IdISPa)PalmaSpain
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations