758 were The ever als (including 87 catch trials)with five short breaks. ative correlation hetweer these two variables was found (Pearson's r(25)=-.506 an older indiv dual with Data preprocessing nced hy factors such as g eral res d (mean RTs d.In th or RT/accuracy)or age:the partial correlations (as shown peripheral cueing task,RTs beyond 3 SD above or below a given participant's mean R (ps Ihis result 3.0%of noncatcl ls for the studies (Study 1,N=33;Study 2,N=27),there was still according to the cueing effects in 58 SOAs for each partici- earson's r(58)= 517, 001 hHeoe2Dareaec1oRtsiastoreahgupow pant(typical cases are presented in Figure 2C).The onset wn in r C).This e or gr ing task isee r tial correlation results in table 1.The correlations betweer IOR-OT were Result In the ACE-R the olde older individuals can score of 92.48 (SE 0.711:a ngc:85-99).In the One may argue that the correlation between IOR-OT Posner peripheral cueing task,the hit rates and the FA rates and ACE-R performance resulted from overlapping pro the older (hit:.997 ±0.002 y IOR. and the n994 1001.FA 14.Acpan mixed-des ANOVA with Cu we defined a partial ACE-R as the sum of the other four lid)and SOA (58 cue-target SOAs)as within-subject factors and Age (old,young)as a between-subject factor was con To bette understan one's IO his s 4.32 showc ts of IOR-OTwith corre d fu 701118036 001 28h latte difference in response time between the Table 1)showed that the negative correlation betweer IOR-O and the (347.4 ±4.9 s).Ih cant (8 .001 cluded. attention SOA (F tions between IOR-OT and the subscale scores of ACE-R can wer not only found in ention/orientation function three-way interaction of Cue validity x SOA x Age (F(57, (58) 29,=.001).butinv rbal flu cmcy(58) .401 0)10) 41 the Cue va n re ee. d the C marginally significant)as well.These results su est that SOA Age interaction indicated that older and younger the connec on between IOR-OT and cognitive functions adults had different temporal dynamic patterns of cucing older adults was not limited to attentional orienting,but reflected general associations the IO of younger participants (357.739.5 ms;0)=4.412 Discussion p<.001,Col en'sd=1.055;see Supplementary Figure 2A) The present study compared the temporal dynamic pat Again,the IOR-OTs of th older group were mostly di terns of cueing effects in older and younger adults,and tributed afte 300 ms h he maje furth ccitioitebhccenoRoran previ levels of SOAs instead of six levels. The 58 cue-target SOAs were variable from 50 to 1,000 ms with every 16.67 ms interval. The entire Posner cueing task consisted of 435 tri￾als (including 87 catch trials) with five short breaks. Data preprocessing The data preprocessing procedure in Study 2 was similar to that in Study 1.  For the ACE-R evaluation, the total score of each participant was calculated. In the Posner peripheral cueing task, RTs beyond 3 SD above or below a given participant’s mean were excluded from analysis. This resulted in removal of 2.1% and 3.0% of noncatch trials for the older participants and the younger partici￾pants, respectively. The individual IOR-OT was computed according to the cueing effects in 58 SOAs for each partici￾pant (typical cases are presented in Figure 2C). The onset time of group average IOR effects for each group is shown in Figure 2D. Result In the ACE-R assessment, the older participants obtained a mean score of 92.48 (SE = 0.711; range: 85–99). In the Posner peripheral cueing task, the hit rates and the FA rates were comparable between the older (hit: .997  ±  0.002, Mean ± SE; FA: .003 ± 0.001) and the younger participants (hit: .994 ± 0.001; FA: .005 ± 0.001), ps > .14. A three￾way mixed-design ANOVA with Cue validity (valid, inva￾lid) and SOA (58 cue-target SOAs) as within-subject factors and Age (old, young) as a between-subject factor was con￾ducted on RTs. This showed significant main effects of SOA (F(57, 3990) = 4.377, p < .001, ηp 2  = .059), and Age (F(1, 70)  =  118.026, p < .001, ηp 2   =  .628), the latter describ￾ing a significant difference in response time between the older group (464.8  ±  12.2  ms) and the younger group (347.4 ± 4.9 ms). The analysis also revealed significant two￾way interactions of Cue validity × Age (F(1, 70) = 58.118, p < .001, ηp 2   =  .454), and Cue validity × SOA (F(57, 3990) = 7.42, p < .001, ηp 2  = .096), as well as a significant three-way interaction of Cue validity × SOA × Age (F(57, 3990) = 1.95, p = .005, ηp 2  = .027). Consistent with Study 1, the Cue validity × SOA interaction reflected a temporal dynamic of cueing effects across SOAs, and the Cue validity × SOA × Age interaction indicated that older and younger adults had different temporal dynamic patterns of cueing effects (see Figure 2D). Consistent with Study 1, the IOR-OT of older partici￾pants (633.4  ±  46.5  ms) was significant later than that of younger participants (357.7 ± 39.5 ms; t(70) = 4.412, p < .001,Cohen’s d = 1.055; see Supplementary Figure 2A). Again, the IOR-OTs of the older group were mostly dis￾tributed after 300 ms, while the majority of the IOR-OTs in the younger group were distributed before 400 ms (see Supplementary Figure 2B). Pearson’s correlation analyses were carried out to meas￾ure the strength of the relationship between IOR-OT and ACE-R scores in the older group. Consistent with Study 1, a significant and comparable negative correlation between these two variables was found (Pearson’s r(25)  =  −.506, p = .007; see Figure 3B). That is, an older individual with worse performance on the ACE-R test showed a later onset of IOR. Similar to Study 1, this relationship was not influ￾enced by factors such as general response speed (mean RTs or RT/accuracy) or age: the partial correlations (as shown in Table 1) did not significantly differ from the simple cor￾relation between IOR-OT and ACE-R (ps > .55). When we merged two sets of older group samples across studies (Study 1, N = 33; Study 2, N = 27), there was still a significant negative correlation between IOR-OT and ACE-R performance (Pearson’s r(58)  =  −.517, p < .001, shown in Figure 3C). This correlation remained significant after controlling factors such as age, mean RT or inverse efficiency (RT/accuracy) of the Posner cueing task (see par￾tial correlation results in Table 1). The correlations between IOR-OT and ACE-R performance in older adults were comparable in each study, indicating a reliable and robust link between IOR-OT and general cognitive functions in older individuals. One may argue that the correlation between IOR-OT and ACE-R performance resulted from overlapping pro￾cesses captured by IOR-OT and the attention/orientation subscale in ACE-R, since both are related to participants’ attentional orienting abilities. To address this concern, we defined a partial ACE-R as the sum of the other four subscales, excluding the attention/orientation subscale. To better understand how one’s IOR-OT relates with his/ her performance in ACE-R, we explored the correlation of IOR-OT with the partial ACE-R and further with the five subscales respectively. The results (see Supplementary Table  1) showed that the negative correlation between IOR-OT and the partial ACE-R score remained signifi￾cant (r(58) = −.455, p < .001), even though the attention/ orientation subscale was excluded. Significant correla￾tions between IOR-OT and the subscale scores of ACE-R were not only found in attention/orientation function (r(58) = −.429, p = .001), but in verbal fluency (r(58) = −.401, p = .001), language function (r(58) = −.392, p = .002), and episodic and semantic memory (r(58) = −.241, p = .064, marginally significant) as well. These results suggest that the connection between IOR-OT and cognitive functions in older adults was not limited to attentional orienting, but reflected general associations. Discussion The present study compared the temporal dynamic pat￾terns of cueing effects in older and younger adults, and further examined the relationship between IOR-OT and general cognitive functions in older individuals. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Castel et  al., 2003; Muiños 758 Journals of Gerontology: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2020, Vol. 75, No. 4 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/75/4/753/5033575 by Southern Medical University user on 04 May 2022