Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

5 Sensory decline (Irrelevant speech effect ((Unrelated to acoustic…

- - - - Prediction
        
        recall is affected by verbal but not by nonverbal noise
        
        higher level of interference
        
        larger effect in old because of inhibition problem
      - Working memory
        
        Phonoligical store
        
        Articulatory suppression
        
        talking about something else
        
        occupies rehersal
        
        Neutralizes effect of ISE
        
        Added this explanation because there was only an age effect for visual
        
        Also this is why there was a difference with negative priming
        
        accessed by auditory and visual
        
        Rehersal procedure
        
        Phonological loop
        
        ......
        
        Visual information should be subvocally rehersed to be remembered. Auditory has direct effect to phonological store
      - Results
        
        Verbal noises disrubt immediate recall but nonverbal not
        
        Familiar/non familiar same effect
        
        semantic content irrelevant
        
        AS
        
        preventing visual material from accessing the phonological store negates ISE
        
        Age
        
        ISE same in old and young
        
        floor effect in old?
        
        Experiment 2
        
        controls for quantative age differences by adjusting digit sequence length to participant
        
        1 more item...
        
        Difference with inhibition defecit hypothesis
        
        Modality specific
        
        Level of processing
      - Language (also irrelevant) affects higher level
  - - - Intensity, amplitude
- - - - Baltes
        
        Predictions
        
        Link between sensory functioning and intelligence in old age
        
        Findings
        
        relationship sensory/cognitive function stronger in older than in younger
    - - More over long time
      - Structural/functional brain changes
    - - Lindeberger
        
        Age-simulation appoach
        
        Temporarily reducing visual or auditory acuity in middle aged
        
        Predictions
        
        Lower intellectual performance under simulated acuity loss
        
        Modality-specific effects
        
        Findings
        
        No effect of simulated loss
        
        Small effect in auditory group
        
        Task
        
        5 condition
        
        visual and auditor
        
        visual
        
        Auditory
        
        Placebo
        
        No treatment
        
        Cognitive battery
      - Sensory deprivation hypothesis
      - Direct
- - - - N=back task distracted by opposite sensory modality
      - Compare new with old stimuli (easy=fixed, 1=1 before, 2=2before)
    - - young and old equally disrupted by auditory distraction but old more distracted by visual
      - age-related effect increased with increasing cognitive demands
    - - Auditory distractor
        
        Older adults faster with auditory distraction (in young no effect)
        
        No effect of memory load
        
        Auditory information did not disrupt accuracy in visual taks in either age group
      - Visual distractor
        
        Visual distractor disrupted accuracy on auditory n-back test, especially in older adults
        
        No correlation visual distraction and dwell time
        
        Age differences in reaction time not larger than those by generalized slowing
        
        No effect of memory load