Curb the Aging Brain’s Distractibility with Practice

Learning to filter out unwanted information can bring older adults’ focus back to young adult levels

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As we age, we seem to get worse at ignoring irrelevant stimuli. It's what makes restaurant conversations challenging—having to converse while also shutting out surrounding chatter. New research bears out the aging brain's distractibility but also suggests that training may help us tune out interference.

Scientists at Brown University recruited seniors and twentysomethings for a visual experiment. Presented with a sequence of letters and numbers, participants were asked to report back only the numbers—all the while disregarding a series of meaningless dots. Sometimes the dots moved randomly, but other times they traveled in a clear direction, making them harder to ignore.

Older participants ended up accidentally learning the dots' patterns, based on the accuracy of their answers when asked which way the dots were moving, whereas young adults seemed able to suppress that information and focus on the numbers, the researchers reported last November in Current Biology.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In a separate study published in Neuron, scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, showed they could train aging brains to become less distractible. Their regimen helped aging rats as well as older people. The researchers played three different sounds and rewarded trainees for identifying a target tone while ignoring distracter frequencies. As the subjects improved, the task grew more challenging—the distracting tone became harder to discriminate from the target.

After the training, both rats and people made fewer distraction-related errors in tests of attention and memory. Electrophysiological brain recordings showed their neural responses to distracters also mellowed out.

Previous brain-training approaches tried to fix distractibility by improving focus, but those efforts failed. “‘Focus’ and ‘ignore’ are not two sides of the same coin,” explains senior author Adam Gazzaley. “If you consider neural measures of focusing, older people look like 20-year-olds. The deficit is specific for ignoring distractions.”

Esther Landhuis is a journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area. She holds a Ph.D. in immunology and covers biomedicine in all dimensions, from bench discoveries to biotech in health care.

More by Esther Landhuis
SA Mind Vol 26 Issue 2This article was published with the title “The Distractible Aging Mind” in SA Mind Vol. 26 No. 2 (), p. 12
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0315-12a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe