↓ Skip to main content

Impaired acquisition of goal-directed action in healthy aging

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impaired acquisition of goal-directed action in healthy aging
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13415-014-0288-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. de Wit, I. van de Vijver, K. R. Ridderinkhof

Abstract

According to dual-system theories, instrumental learning is supported by dissociable goal-directed and habitual systems. Previous investigations of the dual-system balance in healthy aging have yielded mixed results. To further investigate this issue, we compared performance of young (17-24 years) and older (69-84 years) adults on an instrumental learning task. Following the initial learning phase, the behavioral autonomy of the motivational significance of the instrumental outcome was assessed with an outcome-devaluation test and slips-of-action test. The present study provides evidence for a disrupted dual-system balance in healthy aging, as reflected in reduced outcome-induced conflict during acquisition, as well as in impaired performance during the test stage, during which participants had to flexibly adjust their actions to changes in the current desirability of the behavioral outcome. These findings will be discussed in relation to previous aging studies into habitual and goal-directed control, as well as other cognitive impairments, challenges that older adults may face in everyday life, and to the neurobiological basis of the developmental pattern of goal-directed action across the lifespan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 86 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 36%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 32 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2014.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#618
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,519
of 230,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#20
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.