Recent studies have suggested that older individuals selectively forget negative information. However, findings on a positivity effect in the attention of older adults have been more mixed. In the current study, eye tracking was used to record visual fixation in nearly real-time to investigate whether older individuals show a positivity effect in their visual attention to emotional information. Young and old individuals (N = 64) viewed pairs of synthetic faces that included the same face in a nonemotional expression and in 1 of 4 emotional expressions (happiness, sadness, anger, or fear). Gaze patterns were recorded as individuals viewed the face pairs. Older adults showed an attentional preference toward happy faces and away from angry ones; the only preference shown by young adults was toward afraid faces. The age groups were not different in overall cognitive functioning, suggesting that these attentional differences are specific and motivated rather than due to general cognitive change with age.

Research suggests a positivity effect in older adults' memory for emotional material, but the evidence from the attentional domain is mixed. The present study combined 2 methodologies for studying preferences in visual attention, eye tracking, and dot-probe, as younger and older adults viewed synthetic emotional faces. Eye tracking most consistently revealed a positivity effect in older adults' attention, so that older adults showed preferential looking toward happy faces and away from sad faces. Dot-probe results were less robust, but in the same direction. Methodological and theoretical implications for the study of socioemotional aging are discussed.

Purpose Visual field testing uses high contrast stimuli in areas of severe visual field loss. However, retinal ganglion cells saturate with high contrast stimuli, suggesting that the probability of detecting perimetric stimuli may not increase indefinitely as contrast increases. Driven by this concept, this study examines the lower limit of perimetric sensitivity for reliable testing by standard automated perimetry. Design Evaluation of diagnostic test. Participants 34 participants with moderate to severe glaucoma (Mean Deviation (MD) on their last clinic visit averaged −10.90dB, range −20.94dB to −3.38dB). 75 of the 136 locations tested had perimetric sensitivity ≤19dB. Methods Frequency of seeing curves were constructed at four non-adjacent visual field locations by the method of constant stimuli (MOCS), using 35 stimulus presentations at each of 7 contrasts. Locations were chosen a priori, and included at least two with glaucomatous damage but sensitivity ≥6dB. Cumulative Gaussian curves were fit to the data, first assuming a 5% false negative rate, and subsequently allowing the asymptotic maximum response probability to be a free parameter. Main Outcome Measures The strength of the relation (R2) between perimetric sensitivity (mean of last two clinic visits) and MOCS sensitivity (from the experiment), for all locations with perimetric sensitivity within ±4dB of each selected value, at 0.5dB intervals. Results Bins centered at sensitivities ≥19dB always had R2>0.1. All bins centered at sensitivities ≤15dB had R2<0.1, an indication that sensitivities are unreliable. No consistent conclusions could be drawn between 15–19dB. At 57 of the 81 locations with perimetric sensitivity <19dB, including 49 of the 63 locations ≤15dB, the fitted asymptotic maximum response probability was <80%, consistent with the hypothesis of response saturation. At 29 of these locations the asymptotic maximum was below 50%, and so contrast sensitivity (50% response rate) is undefined. Conclusions Clinical visual field testing may be unreliable when visual field locations have sensitivity below approximately 15–19dB, due to a reduction in the asymptotic maximum response probability. Researchers and clinicians may have difficulty detecting worsening sensitivity in these visual field locations and this difficulty may occur commonly in glaucoma patients with moderate to severe glaucomatous visual field loss.

Recent findings that older adults gaze toward positively valenced stimuli and away from negatively valenced stimuli have been interpreted as part of their attempts to achieve the goal of feeling good. However, the idea that older adults use gaze to regulate mood, and that their gaze does not simply reflect mood, stands in contrast to evidence of mood-congruent processing in young adults. No previous study has directly linked age-related positive gaze preferences to mood regulation. In this eye-tracking study, older and younger adults in a range of moods viewed synthetic face pairs varying in valence. Younger adults demonstrated mood-congruent gaze, looking more at positive faces when in a good mood and at negative faces when in a bad mood. Older adults displayed mood-incongruent positive gaze, looking toward positive and away from negative faces when in a bad mood. This finding suggests that in older adults, gaze does not reflect mood, but rather is used to regulate it.Recent studies have documented age differences in patterns of fixation to emotional stimuli paired with neutral stimuli. Older adults show preferential fixation toward positive stimuli displaying happiness and away from negative stimuli displaying anger and sadness, whereas young adults show preferential fixation toward negative stimuli displaying fear (Isaacowitz, Wadlinger, Goren, & Wilson, 2006a, 2006b. Such age-related positivity effects in information processing have been investigated and interpreted within the framework of socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2006;Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). According to this theory, motivational shifts lead older adults to prioritize emotionregulatory goals, and their preferential processing of positively over negatively valenced stimuli is a logical means to accomplish the goal of optimizing current mood.How can one know whether older adults' positive gaze preferences arise for these reasons? An important piece of the theoretical puzzle has yet to be demonstrated: whether these gaze patterns relate specifically to mood regulation. In other words, do positive gaze preferences arise when older adults are in a situation in which they need to regulate their mood? The current study was designed to answer this question, thus testing whether socioemotional selectivity theory provides an accurate motivational account for the origin of age differences in gaze.The idea that older adults use positive preferences in their gaze to intentionally regulate their mood (Carstensen, Mikels, & Mather, 2006) Blaney, 1986;Bower, 1981;Matt, Vázquez, & Campbell, 1992). Though most of this evidence for mood congruence concerns memory, one study found that dysphoric young adults look more at negative than at neutral stimuli, thus showing mood-congruent sustained attention (Bradley, Mogg, & Lee, 1997). Mood-congruent processing is generally interpreted as resulting from the mood itself, serving to maintain mood through primarily automatic processes (Blaney, 1986). As young adults' mood congruence is c...

Facial expressions are key to social interactions and to assessment of potential danger in various situations. Therefore, our brains must be able to recognize facial expressions when they are transformed in biologically plausible ways. We used synthetic happy, sad, angry and fearful faces to determine the amount of geometric change required to recognize these emotions during brief presentations. Five-alternative forced choice conditions involving central viewing, peripheral viewing and inversion were used to study recognition among the four emotions. Two-alternative forced choice was used to study affect discrimination when spatial frequency information in the stimulus was modified. The results show an emotion and task-dependent pattern of detection. Facial expressions presented with low peak frequencies are much harder to discriminate from neutral than faces defined by either mid or high peak frequencies. Peripheral presentation of faces also makes recognition much more difficult, except for happy faces. Differences between fearful detection and recognition tasks are probably due to common confusions with sadness when recognizing fear from among other emotions. These findings further support the idea that these emotions are processed separately from each other.