Biomedical subjects

Chandramallika Basak

Publications and source records attributed to Chandramallika Basak.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Aging, task complexity, and efficiency modes: the influence of working memory involvement on age differences in response times for verbal and visuospatial tasks.

We examined the information-processing functions (response-time x load) of younger and older adults for two verbal and one visuo-spatial task; each task was implemented in a baseline and a high-complexity condition. Heightened complexity transformed the baseline functions in either an additive or a multiplicative fashion. The processing efficiency of older adults was defined as the old-young ratio of the slopes of the load functions. Three levels of efficiency could be distinguished. The first level, with an age-related slowing factor of about 1.2, consisted of low-complexity verbal processing and additive-complexity verbal processing. The second level, associated with a slowing factor of about 1.6, consisted of a mixture of verbal-high-multiplicative-complexity processing and visuo-spatial-low-complexity processing. The third level, with a slowing factor of about 4, consisted of visuo-spatial processing of high multiplicative complexity. The results go against any common factor theory of aging. Instead, they suggest that a shift from a higher to a lower mode of efficiency is triggered by a greater degree of working memory involvement.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Ageing and switching of the focus of attention in working memory: results from a modified N-back task.

We conducted two experiments using a modified version of the N-Back task. For younger adults, there was an abrupt increase in reaction time of about 250 ms in passing from N = 1 to N > 1, indicating a cost associated with switching of the focus of attention within working memory. Response time costs remained constant over the range N = 2 to N = 5. Accuracy declined steadily over the full range of N (Experiment 1). Focus switch costs did not interact with either working memory updating (Experiment 1), or global task switching (Experiment 2). There were no age differences in RT costs once general slowing was taken into account, but there was a larger focus-switch-related accuracy cost in older adults than in younger adults. No age sensitivity was found for either updating or global task switching. The results suggest (a) that focus switching is a cognitive primitive, distinct from task switching and updating, and (b) that focus switching shows a specific age-related deficit in the accuracy domain.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

A working memory workout: how to expand the focus of serial attention from one to four items in 10 hours or less.

Five individuals participated in an extensive practice study (10 1-hr sessions, 11,000 trials total) on a self-paced identity-judgment (1)n-back task (n ranging from 1 to 5). Within Session 1, response time increased abruptly by about 300 ms in passing from n = 1 to n > 1, suggesting that the focus of attention can accommodate only a single item (H. Caravan, 1998; B. McElree, 2001). Within Session 10, response time was dramatically reduced and increased linearly with n for n < or = 4, with a slope of about 30 ms. The data suggest that working memory consists of a focus of attention governed by a limited-capacity search, expandable through practice, and a content-addressable region outside the focus of attention.

Attention↗

PubMed2003

Subitizing speed, subitizing range, counting speed, the Stroop effect, and aging: capacity differences and speed equivalence.

Thirty younger and 29 older adults were tested on reaction times for set size of a display of 1 to 9 digits. On half of the trials, the nominal value of the digits was equal to the size of the set displayed; on the other half, the value differed by 1 from the set size (Stroop interference). We found evidence for age differences in subitizing span (2.83 vs. 2.07). Once individual differences in subitizing range were taken into account, no age differences were found in the rate of either subitizing or counting, and no individual differences were apparent in subitizing speed. There was no age difference in the susceptibility to the Stroop effect. The results suggest that, with advancing age, the size of the focus of attention may shrink, but speed of access to elements in the focus of attention may remain constant.

Adolescent↗