Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic review of age-related differences in n-back performance. METHOD: Meta-analytic data aggregation. RESULTS: Access for items stored within the focus of attention (0-back and 1-back) was very fast and quasi-perfect; when items are held outside the focus (n > 1), an additional cost was accrued in both accuracy and response time. Age-related differences in accuracy conformed to this bifurcation. Longer lists led to larger costs when going from 1-back to 2-back in older adults. For 1-back accuracy, studies that used visual (as opposed to verbal) stimuli, were experimenter-paced, and used shorter list lengths led to larger age-related differences; for 2-back accuracy, a larger difference in chronological age, visual stimuli, and a higher target proportion led to larger age-related differences. For 1-back response times, age-related differences were larger for studies that had a larger chronological age difference, used experimenter pacing, did not contain lures, and used shorter list lengths; for 2-back response times, age-related differences were larger for studies with larger chronological age differences, visual presentation, experimenter pacing, and a higher target proportion. DISCUSSION: The results suggest a specific age-related deficit associated with focus switching within working memory. Evidence for specific executive-control-related explanations, in contrast, is mixed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bopp et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: