Background: Working memory (WM) involves temporarily storing and manipulating information. Research on the impact of aging on WM has shown inconsistent results regarding the decline in visual and verbal WM, with a lack of studies on tactile WM. This study aimed to assess the effects of aging on WM across verbal, visuospatial, and tactile modalities using span tasks of forward (storage) and backward (manipulation) stages. Methods: A total of 130 participants, divided into four age groups of 20–29, 60–69, 70–79, and 80–89, completed the Digit, Visuospatial, and Tactual Spans. Performance was analyzed using a 3 (Task) × 4 (Group) × 2 (Stage) mixed design repeated measures ANOVA. Results: The analysis revealed significant main effects for modality (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.15), age (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.48), and stage (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.30). Digit Span outperformed the other modalities, while Tactual Span showed the worst performance. Additionally, task performance declined with age, and the forward stage was superior to the backward stage. Interaction effects indicated that Digit Span was less affected by aging compared to the Visuospatial and Tactual Spans (p = 0.004, η_p² = 0.07). Post hoc analyses further revealed that the Digit Span consistently outperformed the other modalities in both stages, with more pronounced differences observed in the forward stage. Conclusions: Verbal WM is more resilient to aging compared to the other modalities while tactile WM declines with age in a manner similar to verbal and visuospatial WM, suggesting a modality-specific impact of aging on WM.

Research exploring the impact of development and aging on working memory (WM) has primarily concentrated on visual and verbal domains, with limited attention paid to the tactile modality. The current study sought to evaluate WM encompassing storage and manipulation across these three modalities, spanning from childhood to old age. The study included 134 participants, divided into four age groups: 7–8, 11–12, 25–35, and 60–69. Each participant completed the Visuospatial Span, Digit Span, and Tactual Span, with forward and backward recall. The findings demonstrated a consistent trend in both forward and backward stages. Performance improved until young adulthood, progressively diminishing with advancing age. In the forward stage, the Tactual Span performance was worse than that of the Digit and Visuospatial Span for all participants. In the backward stage, the Visuospatial Span outperformed the Digit and Tactual Span across all age groups. Furthermore, the Tactual Span backward recall exhibited significantly poorer performance than the other modalities, primarily in the youngest and oldest age groups. In conclusion, age impacts WM differently across modalities, with tactile storage capacity being the most vulnerable. Additionally, tactile manipulation skills develop later in childhood but deteriorate sooner in adulthood, indicating a distinct component within tactile WM.

Background: Working memory (WM) impairment is a potential consequence of motor aphasia resulting from left-hemisphere ischemic stroke. While verbal WM has been studied extensively in this disorder, research regarding non-verbal modalities remains limited, particularly visuospatial WM, tactile WM, and the relationship between them. Additionally, language impairments limit the ability to assess WM in aphasia patients, highlighting the necessity of non-verbal diagnostic tools in clinical practice. The current study’s objectives were to compare tactile and visuospatial WM in patients with post-stroke motor aphasia and to validate the one-hand version of the Tactual Span task as a clinical measure of WM. Methods: A total of 29 participants—14 with post-stroke motor aphasia and 15 healthy controls—completed a battery of cognitive tests, including the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices Test, the Visuospatial Span, the Tactual Span, and a visual 1-Back task. Results: There was significantly lower performance across all WM tasks in the aphasia group compared to the controls. Additionally, the Tactual Span successfully discriminated between patients and controls, showing sensitivity estimates of 92.9% and a specificity of 66.7%, with a cut-off score of 4.5 (AUC = 0.91), for the forward stage. The backward stage revealed a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 73.3%, with a cut-off score of 3.5 (AUC = 0.83). Conclusions: The findings may suggest that non-verbal WM impairment in post-stroke aphasia affects both visuospatial and tactile modalities similarly. Furthermore, the Tactual Span appears to be sensitive to left-hemisphere stroke damage, suggesting its potential utility as a clinical tool for WM assessment in patients with motor aphasia.