ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Note1 Oct 2016

Random Item Generation Is Affected by Age

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0077

    Abstract

    Purpose

    Random item generation (RIG) involves central executive functioning. Measuring aspects of random sequences can therefore provide a simple method to complement other tools for cognitive assessment. We examine the extent to which RIG relates to specific measures of cognitive function, and whether those measures can be estimated using RIG only.

    Method

    Twelve healthy older adults (age: M = 70.3 years, SD = 4.9; 8 women and 4 men) and 20 healthy young adults (age: M = 24 years, SD = 4.0; 12 women and 8 men) participated in this pilot study. Each completed a RIG task, along with the color Stroop test, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition (Dunn & Dunn, 2007). Several statistical features extracted from RIG sequences, including recurrence quantification, were found to be related to the other measures through correlation, regression, and a neural-network model.

    Results

    The authors found significant effects of age in RIG and demonstrate that nonlinear machine learning can use measures of RIG to accurately predict outcomes from other tools.

    Conclusions

    These results suggest that RIG can be used as a relatively simple predictor for other tools and in particular seems promising as a potential screening tool for selective attention in healthy aging.

    Supplemental Material

    https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14963904

    References

    • Albinet, C. T., Boucard, G., Bouquet, C. A., & Audiffren, M. (2012). Processing speed and executive functions in cognitive aging: How to disentangle their mutual relationship?.Brain Cognition, 79, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.02.001
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Albinet, C., Tomporowski, P. D., & Beasman, K. (2006). Aging and concurrent task performance: Cognitive demand and motor control.Educational Gerontology, 32, 689–706. doi:10.1080/03601270600835421
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The capacity for generating information by randomization.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 119–129. doi:10.1080/14640746608400019
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Baddeley, A. D. (1998). The central executive: A concept and some misconceptions.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 523–526.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Baddeley, A. D., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random generation and the executive control of working memory.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 51(A), 819–852. doi:10.1080/713755788
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Ben-David, B. M., Tewari, A., Shakuf, V., & van Lieshout, P. H. H. M. (2014). Stroop effects in Alzheimer's disease: Selective attention speed of processing, or color-naming? A meta-analysis.Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 38, 923–938.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Bialystok, E., & Luk, G. (2012). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual adults.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 397–401.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Boucard, G. K., Albinet, C. T., Bugaiska, A., Bouquet, C. A., Clarys, D., & Audiffren, M. (2012). Impact of physical activity on executive functions in aging: A selective effect on inhibition among old adults.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 808–827.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Breidt, R. (1973). Are perseverations explained by brain damage?.Psychiatrica Clinica (Basel), 6, 357–369.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Brugger, P., Monsch, A. U., Salmon, D. P., & Butters, N. (1996). Random number generation in dementia of the Alzheimer type: A test of frontal executive functions.Neuropsychologia, 34, 97–103.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
      Google Scholar
    • Evans, F. J. (1978). Monitoring attention deployment by random number generation: An index to measure subjective randomness.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 35–38.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Fisk, J. E., & Sharp, C. A. (2004). Age-related impairment in executive functioning: Updating, inhibition, shifting, and access.Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26, 874–890. doi:10.1080/13803390490510680
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gao, J., & Cai, H. (2000). On the structures and quantification of recurrence plots.Physics Letters A, 270, 75–87.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Ginsburg, N., & Karpiuk, P. (1994). Random generation: Analysis of the responses.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1059–1067.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Glisky, E. L. (2007). Changes in cognitive function in human aging.In D. R. Riddle (Ed.), Brain aging: Models, methods, and mechanisms (pp. 3–20). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and new view.In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory ( Vol. 22, pp. 193–225). New York, NY: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Heuer, H., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Random noun generation in younger and older adults.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 465–478. doi:10.1080/17470210902974138
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Jahanshahi, M., Saleem, T., Ho, A. K., Dirnberger, G., & Fuller, R. (2006). Random number generation as an index of controlled processing.Neuropsychology, 20, 391–399.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Kiefer, M., Ahlegian, M., & Spitzer, M. (2005). Working memory capacity, indirect semantic priming, and Stroop interference: Pattern of interindividual prefrontal performance differences in healthy volunteers.Neuropsychology, 19, 332–344. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.332
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015, May28). Deep learning.Nature, 521, 436–444.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Little, M. A., McSharry, P. E., Roberts, S. J., Costello, D. A. E., & Moroz, I. M. (2007). Exploiting nonlinear recurrence and fractal scaling properties for voice disorder detection.BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 6, 23. doi:10.1186/1475-925X-6-23
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Marwan, N., Romano, M. C., Thiel, M., & Kurths, J. (2007). Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems.Physics Reports, 438, 237–329.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Maylor, E. A., & Wing, A. M. (1996). Age differences in postural stability are increased by additional cognitive demands.Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51B, P143–P154.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Morris, R. G. (1994). Working memory in Alzheimer-type dementia.Neuropsychology, 8, 544–554.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Peters, M., Giesbrecht, T., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2007). The random number generation task: Psychometric properties and normative data of an executive function task in a mixed sample.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 626–634. doi:10.1017/S1355617707070786
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Rabinowitz, F. M. (1970). Characteristic sequential dependencies in multiple-choice situations.Psychological Bulletin, 74, 141–148.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Randolph, C. (1998). Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
      Google Scholar
    • Randolph, C. (2008). Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar
    • Randolph, C. (2012). Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Randolph, C., Tierney, M. C., Mohr, E., & Chase, T. N. (1998). The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): Preliminary clinical validity.Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 310–319. doi:10.1076/jcen.20.3.310.823
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Richmond, K., King, S., & Taylor, P. (2003). Modelling the uncertainty in recovering articulation from acoustics.Computer Speech & Language, 17, 153–172.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rinehart, N. J., Bradshaw, J. L., Moss, S. A., Brereton, A. V., & Tonge, B. J. (2006). Pseudo-random number generation in children with high-functioning autism and Asperger's disorder: Further evidence for a dissociation in executive functioning?.Autism, 10, 70–85. doi:10.1177/1362361306062011
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Sexton, N. J., & Cooper, R. P. (2014). An architecturally constrained model of random number generation and its application to modeling the effect of generation rate.Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 670. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00670
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Spatt, J., & Goldenberg, G. (1993). Components of random generation by normal subjects and patients with dysexecutive syndrome.Brain and Cognition, 23, 231–242. doi:10.1006/brcg.1993.1057
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Van der Linden, M., Beerten, A., & Pesenti, M. (1998). Age-related differences in random generation.Brain and Cognition, 38, 1–16.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Wagenaar, W. A. (1970). Subjective randomness and the capacity to generate information.Acta Psychologica, 33, 233–242.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Williams, M. A., Moss, S. A., Bradshaw, J. L., & Rinehart, N. J. (2002). Random number generation in autism.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 43–47.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

    Additional Resources