Background/Objectives: Proactive interference (PI) occurs when existing memories make it harder to remember newer information, and visual working memory in older adults may be impacted by increased vulnerability to PI. However, evidence supporting age-sensitive PI in the recent-probes task – a major technique for measuring PI – is mixed. Additionally, features of this procedure may have exaggerated or distorted the effect, so the current study reassessed the recent-probes task. Methods: Throughout the online experiment, adults aged 18-29 and 64-80 memorized four images over a brief delay and then had to choose between a current target or a foil depicting an item from the previous trial (a recent negative probe) or a more distant trial (a non-recent negative probe). Participants were cued to respond either immediately or after a pause, and tar-gets came from a small, extensively repeated set or a unique set. Results: PI was present, with slower and less accurate responding to RN than NRN foils, and errors notably in-creased when stimuli were unique and an immediate response was required. However, there was little evidence for age differences in PI. Conclusions: The present findings suggest that the ability to manage PI in visual working memory is not hindered in older age.
This page provides the materials and tasks used in the experiment.
Built with Experiment
The experiment used a mixed design. Participants completed a recent-probes task with either a set of unique stimuli (i.e., images were used as a target only once) or a small set of repeated stimuli (i.e., images were used as targets scores of times in the experiment). To avoid the possibility that specific features of the repeated stimuli were responsible for any differences, eight different sets of eight images were created - Sets A-H. Participants were randomly allocated to one set, but they completed both repeated and unique conditions. A sound cue was used to indicate when participants should response, and this occurred immediately or after a brief delay. While full trial randomization is not possible in the recent-probes task, trials in the repeated and unique conditions were organized into mini blocks of eight trials. Mini blocks followed a specific order, but the order of these mini blocks was random. The repeated and unique conditions were completed separately, but the order of conditions was counterbalanced.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
Built with Task Builder 2
Fully open! Access by URL and searchable from the Open Materials search page
