Explaining age-related decline in theory of mind: Evidence for intact competence but compromised executive function


Autoři: Isu Cho aff001;  Adam S. Cohen aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Psychology and Brain and Mind Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222890

Souhrn

Previous studies suggest theory of mind (ToM) ability declines with age. However, prior tasks not only required ToM competence but also imposed high executive function (EF) demands, so decline in ToM ability could be caused by deterioration in ToM competence, EF, or both. It was predicted that if the elderly have intact ToM competence but compromised EF, then they should perform similarly to younger adults when using ToM tasks that lower executive demands, such as spontaneous-response tasks. Results showed that on tasks with reduced demands, older adults tracked belief to the same extent as younger adults, despite their declining EF. The findings support a model in which age-related decline in ToM ability is primarily caused by compromised EF, not ToM competence, suggesting that underlying ToM mechanisms are still intact in the elderly. We discuss implications of this work for competence-performance issues in ToM processing and the underlying sources of age-related deterioration of ToM.

Klíčová slova:

People and places – Population groupings – Age groups – Elderly – Biology and life sciences – Neuroscience – Cognitive science – Cognitive psychology – Reasoning – Cognitive neuroscience – Reaction time – Working memory – Cognition – Memory – Sensory systems – Visual system – Eye movements – Learning and memory – Psychology – Theory of mind – Physiology – Sensory physiology – Social sciences – Research and analysis methods – Mathematical and statistical techniques – Statistical methods – Metaanalysis – Physical sciences – Mathematics – Statistics – Medicine and health sciences


Zdroje

1. Maylor EA, Moulson JM, Muncer AM, Taylor LA. Does the performance on theory of mind tasks decline in old age? Br J Psychol. 2002; 93: 465–485. 12519529

2. Carlson SM, Moses LJ. Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Dev. 2001; 72:1032–1053. 11480933

3. Salthouse TA, Atkinson TM, Berish DE. Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003; 132: 566–594. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566 14640849

4. Bailey PE, Henry JD. Growing less empathic with age: Disinhibition of the self-perspective. J Gerontol.2008; 63: 219–226.

5. Charlton RA, Barrick TR, Markus HS, Morris RG. Theory of mind associations with other cognitive functions and brain imaging in normal aging. Psychol Aging. 2009; 24: 338–348. doi: 10.1037/a0015225 19485652

6. German TP, Hehman JA. Representational and executive selection resources in theory of mind: Evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age. Cognition. 2006;101: 129–152. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.007 16288734

7. Phillips LH, Bull R, Allen R, Insch P, Burr K, Ogg W. Lifespan aging and belief reasoning: Influences of executive function and social cue decoding. Cognition. 2011;120: 236–247. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.003 21624567

8. Rakoczy H, Harder‐Kasten A, Sturm L. The decline of theory of mind in old age is (partly) mediated by developmental changes in domain‐general abilities. Br J Psychol. 2012; 103: 58–72. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02040.x 22229774

9. Baillargeon R, Scott RM, He Z. False-belief understanding in infants. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010; 14:110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006 20106714

10. Henry JD, Phillips LH, Ruffman T, & Bailey PE. A meta-analytic review of age differences in theory of mind. Psychol Aging. 2013; 28: 826–839. doi: 10.1037/a0030677 23276217

11. Scott RM. The developmental origins of false-belief understanding. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2017; 26: 68–74.

12. Onishi KH, Baillargeon R. Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Sci. 2005; 308: 255–258.

13. Southgate V, Senju A, Csibra G. Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18: 587–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01944.x 17614866

14. Surian L, Caldi S, Sperber D. Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18: 580–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01943.x 17614865

15. Grainger SA., Henry JD., Naughtin CK., Comino MS, Dux PE. (2018). Implicit false belief tracking is preserved in late adulthood. Q J Exp Psychol. 2018; 71: 1980–1987.

16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39: 175–191. 17695343

17. Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clinical Gerontologist: J Aging Ment Health. 1986; 5: 165–173.

18. Wechsler D. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition (WASI-II). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson; 2011.

19. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975; 12: 189–198. 1202204

20. Baddeley A. Exploring the central executive. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1996; 49: 5–28.

21. Miyake A., Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000; 41: 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 10945922

22. Miyake A, Friedman NP. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012; 21: 8–14. doi: 10.1177/0963721411429458 22773897

23. Patel T, Kurdi MS. A comparative study between oral melatonin and oral midazolam on preoperative anxiety, cognitive, and psychomotor functions. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015; 31: 37–43. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.150534 25788771

24. Reitan RM. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills. 1958; 8: 271–276.

25. Piper BJ, Li V, Eiwaz MA, Kobel YV, Benice TS, Chu AM, et al. Executive function on the psychology experiment building language tests. Behav Res Methods, 2012; 44: 110–123. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0096-6 21534005

26. JASP Team. JASP. Version 0.9 [Computer software]. 2018. https://jasp-stats.org/

27. Apperly IA, Butterfill SA. Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychol Rev. 2009; 116: 953–970. doi: 10.1037/a0016923 19839692

28. Perner J, Ruffman T. Infants’ insight into the mind: How deep? Sci. 2005;308: 214–216.

29. Hyde DC, Simon CE, Ting F, Nikolaeva J. Functional organization of the temporal-parietal junction for theory of mind in preverbal infants: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. J Neurosci. 2018; 38: 4264–4274. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0264-17.2018 29593053

30. Király I, Oláh K, Csibra G, Kovács ÁM. Retrospective attribution of false beliefs in 3-year-old children. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018; 115: 11477–11482. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1803505115 30322932

31. Apperly IA. What is “theory of mind”? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences. Q J Exp Psychol, 2012; 65: 825–839.

32. Leslie AM, Friedman O, German TP. Core mechanisms in ‘theory of mind’. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8: 528–533. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001 15556021

33. Schaafsma SM, Pfaff DW, Spunt RP, Adolphs R. Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends Cogn Sci. 2015; 19: 65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.11.007 25496670

34. Warnell KR, Redcay E. Minimal coherence among varied theory of mind measures in childhood and adulthood. Cognition. 2019; 191: 103997. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.009 31229848

35. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1964.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 9
Nejčtenější tento týden