Previous research demonstrates that older adults are poor at dual tasking, but there is less agreement on whether their decrement is worse than that predicted from single-task performance. This study investigated whether task domain moderates dual-task costs in old age. In two experiments, young and older adults retrieved either previously learned associates (episodic retrieval) or overlearned category members (semantic retrieval) under single or working-memory load conditions, using cued recall (Experiment 1) and recognition (Experiment 2) procedures. In both experiments the proportional costs of dual tasking were age invariant for semantic retrieval but were particularly marked for episodic retrieval, although the size of the age effect was reduced in recognition compared to cued recall. The data suggest that age effects in dual tasking may be domain specific.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN.D.CraikF. I. M. & Naveh-BenjaminM. (1998). The attentional demands of encoding and retrieval in younger and older adults: 1. Evidence from divided attention costs. Psychology and Aging13(3), 405–423.
2.
BaronA. & MattilaW. R. (1989). Response slowing of older adults: Effects of time-limit contingencies on single-task and dual task performances. Psychology and Aging4(1), 66–72.
3.
BrownW. P. (1978). Belfast Category Norms, 1971-77. Department of Psychology, Queen's University of Belfast.
4.
CraikF. I. M. (1977). Age differences in human memory.BirrenJ. E.SchaieK. W.Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 384–420). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
5.
CraikF. I. M. (1986). A functional account of age differencesin memory. In F. Klix & H. Hagendorf (Eds.), Human memory and cognitive capabilities, mechanisms, and performances (pp. 409–422). New York: Elsevier Science.
6.
CraikF. I. M. & McDowdJ. M. (1987). Age-differences in recall and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition13(3), 474–479.
7.
ColtheartM. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.
8.
DanemanM. & CarpenterP. (1980). Individual differences in working-memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19450–466.
9.
GuttentagR. E. (1989). Age-differences in dual-task performance-procedures, assumptions, and results. Developmental Review9(2), 146–170.
10.
IsingriniM.VazouF. & LeroyP. (1995). Dissociation of implicit and explicit memory tests: Effect of age and divided attention on category exemplar generation and cued-recall. Memory & Cognition23(4), 462–467.
11.
KirchnerW. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology55352–358.
12.
KortelingJ. E. (1991). Effects of skill integration and perceptual competition on age-related differences in dual-task performance. Human Factors3335–44.
13.
LightL. L. & PrullM. W. (1995). Aging, divided attention, and repetition priming. Swiss Journal of Psychology54(2), 87–101.
14.
MachtM. L. & BuschkeH. (1983). Age-differences in cognitive effort in recall. Journals of Gerontology38(6), 695–700.
15.
McDowdJ.M. & CraikF. I.M. (1988). Effects of aging and task-difficulty on divided attention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance14(2), 267–280.
16.
McDowdJ. M.VercruyssenM. & BirrenJ. E.(1991). Aging, divided attention, and d performance. In DamosD. L. (Ed.), Multi-task performance (pp. 387–414). Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd.
17.
NewmanM. C.AllenJ. J. B. & KaszniakA. W. (2001). Tasks for assessing memory for temporal order versus memory for items in aging. Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition8(1), 72–78.
18.
PerfectT. J. & MaylorE. A. (2000). Rejecting the dull hypothesis: The relation between method and theory in cognitive aging.PerfectT. J.MaylorE. A.Models of cognitive aging.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
PerfectT.J. & RabbittP.M.A. (1993). Age and the divided attention costs of category exemplar generation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology11(2), 131–142.
20.
SalthouseT. A.FristoeN. M.LineweaverT. T. & CoonV. E. (1995). Aging of attention: Does the ability to divide decline? Memory and Cognition23 (1), 59–71.
21.
SombergB.L. & SalthouseT.A. (1982). Divided attention abilities in young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8(5), 651–663.
22.
TsangP. S. & ShanerT.L. (1998). Age, attention, expertise, and time-sharing performance. Psychology and Aging13(2), 323–347.
23.
TunP. A. & WingfieldA. (1993). Is speech special? Perception and recall of spoken languagein complex environments. In J. Cerella, J. Rybash, W. Hoyer, & M. L. Commons (Eds.), Adult information processing: Limits on loss (pp. 425–457). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24.
TunP. A.WingfieldA.StineE. A. L. & MecsasC. (1992). Rapid speech processing and divided attention- processing rateversus processing resources as an explanation of age effects. Psychology and Aging7(4), 546–550.
25.
WatterS.GeffenG. M. & Geffen, L. B. (2001). The N-back as a dual-task: P300 morphology under divided attention. Psychophysiology, 38(6), 998–1003.
