Skip to main content
. 2008 Feb 20;3(2):e1568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001568

Table 4. Confound-free Vigilance Age Contrasts in Laboratory Settings by Cue Type (Event, Time).

First Author & Year Exp. no. Condition Ongoing Task No. cues # Cue-Action pairs Lenient/Strict Scoring Young n Older n ProM Young M ProM Older M ProM Age Effect Confounds
EC Vigilance
Cohen '01 [84] 1 very related PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.92 0.78 -
Cohen '01 [84] 1 somewhat related PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.87 0.72 -
Cohen '01 [84] 1 unrelated PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.73 0.52 -
Cohen '01 [84] 2 picture+word related PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.96 0.85 -
Cohen '01 [84] 2 picture+word unrelated PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.91 0.74 -
Cohen '01 [84] 2 word only related PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.74 0.45 -
Cohen '01 [84] 2 word only unrelated PA 24 24 L 24 24 0.73 0.34 -
Cohen '03 [85] 1 none displaced visual search 12 2 L 30 30 0.82 0.53 -
Cohen '03 [85] 1 target displaced visual search 12 2 L 30 30 0.71 0.54 -
Cohen '03 [85] 1 cue displaced visual search 12 2 L 30 30 0.80 0.59 -
Cohen '03 [85] 2 cue displaced visual search 12 2 L 31 32 0.56 0.45 -
Cohen '03 [85] 2 target displaced visual search 12 2 L 31 32 0.61 0.52 -
Cohen '03 [85] 2 cue displaced visual search 12 2 L 31 32 0.71 0.69 -
Cohen '03 [85] 2 cue displaced visual search 12 2 L 31 34 0.56 0.45 -
Cohen '03 [85] 2 target displaced visual search 12 2 L 31 34 0.61 0.39 -
Cohen '03 [85] 2 cue displaced visual search 12 2 L 31 34 0.71 0.55 -
Einstein '95 [55] 2 specific cue WM 3 3 S 11 12 0.85 0.83 -
Einstein '95 [55] 2 general cue WM 3 3 S 11 12 0.56 0.47 -
Costermans ‘99 [86] 1 cp movie 6 1 S 10 10 0.78 0.69 -
Costermans ’99 [86] 1 vp/d = 7 movie 4 1 S 10 10 0.80 0.80  = 
Costermans ’99 [86] 1 vp/d = 3 movie 4 1 S 10 10 0.75 0.67 -
Einstein '95 [55] 2 general cue WM 3 3 S 12 12 0.56 0.47 -
Einstein '97 [20] 1 standard w/rating 6 1 S 16 16 0.71 0.53 -
Einstein '97 [20] 1 demanding w/rating+digit detect. 6 1 S 16 16 0.58 0.25 -
Einstein '97 [20] 2 enc std/ret std w/rating 6 1 S 16 16 0.66 0.58 -
Einstein '97 [20] 2 enc std/ret dem w/rating+digit detect. 6 1 S 16 16 0.64 0.38 -
Einstein '97 [20] 2 enc dem/ret std w/rating 6 1 S 16 16 0.47 0.54 +
Einstein '97 [20] 2 enc dem/ret dem w/rating+digit detect. 6 1 S 16 16 0.55 0.17 -
Einstein '98 [54] 1 std att/no cue u/t 11 1 S 15 15 0.91 0.69 -
Einstein '98 [54] 1 std att/cue u/t 11 1 S 15 15 0.89 0.73 -
Einstein '98 [54] 1 div att/no cue u/t 11 1 S 15 15 0.82 0.62 -
Einstein '98 [54] 1 div att/cue u/t 11 1 S 15 15 0.81 0.52 -
d'Ydewalle '99 [87] 1 q&a q&a 3 1 S 30 30 0.81 0.42 -
d'Ydewalle '99 [87] 1 faces face identification 3 1 S 30 30 0.92 0.73 -
d'Ydewalle '01 [88] 1 low complexity math 5 1 S 12 12 0.62 0.17 -
d'Ydewalle '01 [88] 1 high complexity math 5 1 S 12 12 0.70 0.73 +
Kidder '97 [18] 1 WM 2/ProM 1 WM 6 1 S 15 15 0.98 0.98  =  e(6y,23o)
Kidder '97 [18] 1 WM 3/ProM 1 WM 6 1 S 15 15 0.82 0.69 - e(6y,23o)
Kidder '97 [18] 1 WM 2/ProM 3 WM 6 3 S 15 15 0.97 0.85 - e(6y,23o)
Kidder '97 [18] 1 WM 3/ProM 3 WM 6 3 S 15 15 0.90 0.63 - e(6y,23o)
Logie '04 [89] 1 low arithmetic movie+arithmetics 5 1 S 10 10 1.00 0.98 -
Logie '04 [89] 1 high arithmetic movie+arithmetics 5 1 S 10 10 0.96 0.80 -
Mantyla '93 [90] 1 typical/primed generate associates 8 4 S 16 16 0.86 0.75 -
Mantyla '93 [90] 1 typical/nonprime generate associates 8 4 S 16 16 0.80 0.49 -
Mantyla '93 [90] 1 atypical/primed generate associates 8 4 S 16 16 0.80 0.30 -
Mantyla '93 [90] 1 atypical/nonprime generate associates 8 4 S 16 16 0.48 0.22 -
Mantyla '94 [91] 1 typical generate associates 8 4 S 18 18 0.79 0.65 -
Mantyla '94 [91] 1 atypical generate associates 8 4 S 18 18 0.65 0.26 -
Martin '03 [40] 1 word rating w/rating 4 1 S 40 40 0.95 0.79 -
Maylor '93 [92] 1 block 1 face identification 8 2 L 43 43 0.69 0.68 -
Maylor '93 [92] 1 block 2 face identification 8 2 L 43 43 0.83 0.66 -
Maylor '93 [92] 1 block 3 face identification 8 2 L 43 43 0.87 0.69 -
Maylor '93 [92] 1 block 4 face identification 8 2 L 43 43 0.92 0.71 -
Maylor '96 [60] 1 block 1 face identification 8 1 S 56 59 0.57 0.26 -
Maylor '96 [60] 1 block 2 face identification 8 1 S 56 59 0.65 0.25 -
Maylor '96 [60] 1 block 3 face identification 8 1 S 56 59 0.67 0.27 -
Maylor '96 [60] 1 block 4 face identification 8 1 S 56 59 0.60 0.28 -
Maylor '98 [65] 1 block 1 face identification 8 1 S 45 59 0.65 0.26 -
Maylor '98 [65] 1 block 2 face identification 8 1 S 45 59 0.75 0.25 -
Maylor '98 [65] 1 block 3 face identification 8 1 S 45 59 0.81 0.26 -
Maylor '98 [65] 1 block 4 face identification 8 1 S 45 59 0.84 0.28 -
Maylor '02 [93] 1 movie movie 5 1 S 15 15 1.00 0.92 -
Maylor '02 [93] 2 related movie 5 1 S 10 10 1.00 0.88 -
Maylor '02 [93] 2 unrelated movie 5 1 S 10 10 0.96 0.90 -
McDermott '04 [39] 1 movie 25-min video 27 27 L 30 30 0.73 0.58 -
Park '97 [19] 1 6-event WML3 6 1 S 16 16 0.94 0.71 -
Park '97 [19] 1 12-event WML3 12 1 S 16 16 0.92 0.87 -
Rendell '00 [94] 1 irregular tasks virtual week 70 6 L 20 20 0.78 0.42 -
Rendell '00 [94] 1 regular tasks virtual week 70 6 L 20 20 0.93 0.82 -
Salthouse '04 [50] 1 concepts concept ident. 4 1 S 255 75 0.75 0.49 -
Salthouse '04 [50] 1 pictures pictures task 9 1 S 255 75 0.95 0.81 -
Salthouse '04 [50] 1 WML3 WML3 24 1 S 255 75 0.84 0.60 -
Vogels '02 [95] 1 block 1 letter-monitoring 12 2 S 16 16 0.81 0.81  = 
Vogels '02 [95] 1 block 2 letter-monitoring 12 2 S 16 16 0.91 0.88 -
Vogels '02 [95] 1 block 3 letter-monitoring 12 2 S 16 16 0.94 0.97 +
Vogels '02 [95] 1 word comp word-comparison 20 2 S 16 11 0.94 0.68 - ep(0y,5o)
Vogels '02 [95] 1 pictures pictures task 35 1 S 16 14 0.84 0.69 - ep(0y,2o)
Vogels '02 [95] 1 no feedback three-in a row task 36 1 S 15 13 0.84 0.86 + ep(1y,3o)
Vogels '02 [95] 1 feedback three-in a row task 36 1 S 15 13 0.88 0.87 - ep(1y,3o)
West '99a [96] 1 w/classification w/class category 20 2 S 24 24 0.96 0.79 -
West '99a [96] 2 w/classification w/class category 10 2 S 12 12 0.91 0.75 -
West '03 [97] 1 w/classification w/class 48 1 S 16 16 0.73 0.46 -
West '01 [98] 1 w/classification w/class. 40 1 S 16 16 0.95 0.83 -
West '01 [10] 1 percep/immed w/class color 16 4 S 20 20 0.86 0.60 -
West '01 [10] 1 sem/immed w/class color 16 4 S 20 20 0.41 0.24 -
West '01 [10] 1 percept/post w/class color 16 4 S 20 20 0.58 0.24 -
West '01 [10] 1 sem/post w/class color 16 4 S 20 20 0.28 0.19 -
West '01 [10] 1 percep/immed w/class category 16 4 S 20 20 0.89 0.58 -
West '01 [10] 1 sem/immed w/class category 16 4 S 20 20 0.58 0.39 -
West '01 [10] 1 percept/post w/class category 16 4 S 20 20 0.78 0.38 -
West '01 [10] 1 sem/post w/class category 16 4 S 20 20 0.64 0.24 -
West '01 [10] 2 percep w/class color 16 2 S 12 12 0.88 0.67 -
West '01 [10] 2 seman w/class color 16 2 S 12 12 0.70 0.41 -
West '01 [10] 2 percept w/class category 16 2 S 12 12 0.92 0.70 -
West '01 [10] 2 seman w/class category 16 2 S 12 12 0.92 0.73 -
TC Vigilance
d'Ydewalle '95 [99] 1 involving movie 14 1 S 12 18 1.00 1.00  =  e(4y,4o)
d'Ydewalle '95 [99] 1 boring movie 14 1 S 11 17 1.00 1.00  =  e(4y,4o)
d'Ydewalle '99 [87] 1 q&a q&a 3 3 S 30 30 0.87 0.68 -
d'Ydewalle '99 [87] 1 faces face identification 3 3 S 30 29 0.97 0.88 -
d'Ydewalle '01 [88] 1 low complexity math 5 5 S 12 12 0.64 0.40 -
d'Ydewalle '01 [87] 1 high complexity math 5 5 S 12 12 0.61 0.10 -
Einstein '95 [55] 1 WM WM 2 1 S 12 12 0.92 0.63 -
Logie '04 [89] 1 low arithmetic movie+arithmetics 5 1 S 10 10 1.00 1.00  = 
Logie '04 [89] 1 high arithmetic movie+arithmetics 5 1 S 10 10 0.96 0.84 -
Martin '01 [100] 1 low complexity Mastermind 6 1 S 30 30 0.92 0.67 -
Martin '01 [100] 1 medium complexity Mastermind 6 1 S 30 30 0.75 0.50 -
Martin '01 [100] 1 high complexity Mastermind 6 1 S 30 15 0.65 0.02 -
Martin '03 [40] 1 w/rating w/rating 4 1 S 40 40 0.97 0.74 -
Maylor '02 [93] 1 movie movie 5 1 S 15 15 1.00 0.70 -
McDermott '04 [39] 1 movie 25-min video 1 1 S 30 30 0.97 0.67 -
Park '97 [19] 2 6- or 12-intervals WML3 9 1 S 32 32 0.63 0.34 -
Park '97 [19] 2 6- or 12-intervals none 9 1 S 24 24 0.80 0.58 -
Patton '93 [101] a 1 stop video movie 1 1 S 24 17 1.00 1.00  = 
Rendell '00 [94] 1 time check virtual week 70 6 L 20 20 0.72 0.34 -

Note. Confounds: o  =  ongoing task was easier for older adults; i  =  older adults were substantially more intelligent than younger adults; dem  =  older group had higher proportion of participants who scored in dementia range on screening tests; e(6y, 23o)  =  exclusion of subjects (6 young, 23 old) for various reasons; ep (0y,5o)  =  exclusion of subjects (0 young, 5 old) because of low ProM performance; item  =  participants were to request a personal item back but the items varied from participant to participant; #cues  =  number of ProM cues varied from participant to participant.

Ongoing task: u/t  =  unrelated tasks; Q&A  =  questions and answers; PA  =  paired associates; WM  =  working memory; E&M STM  =  Einstein & McDaniel Short Term Memory task (WM task); WML3  =  working memory task; WMLVar  =  working memory task.

a

Patton'93: ProM task was “to shut off the movie after exactly 30 min had elapsed”. However, the article reports only deviation from target shut off time in s. Since the article does not mention that any participants forget to shut off the movie, it is assumed that all did.