Age and the Ability To Inhibit Distractor Information in Visual Selective Attention

Kotary, Lisa; Hoyer, William J.

doi:10.1080/03610739508254275

Cited by 38 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While many visual functions decline with increasing age, there is converging evidence showing that the speed of visual enumeration, both subitizing and counting (reaction/processing time per visual item) remains largely unchanged with advancing age [15]–[23], although a few of these studies reported mixed results, suggesting that subitizing range [20], subitizing speed [15], [17], [18] and counting speed [16] might deteriorate slightly. It is important to note that all these studies have focused on reaction time - i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aging and Visual Counting

MacKeben

Chat

et al. 2010

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMuch previous work on how normal aging affects visual enumeration has been focused on the response time required to enumerate, with unlimited stimulus duration. There is a fundamental question, not yet addressed, of how many visual items the aging visual system can enumerate in a “single glance”, without the confounding influence of eye movements.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe recruited 104 observers with normal vision across the age span (age 21–85). They were briefly (200 ms) presented with a number of well- separated black dots against a gray background on a monitor screen, and were asked to judge the number of dots. By limiting the stimulus presentation time, we can determine the maximum number of visual items an observer can correctly enumerate at a criterion level of performance (counting threshold, defined as the number of visual items at which ≈63% correct rate on a psychometric curve), without confounding by eye movements. Our findings reveal a 30% decrease in the mean counting threshold of the oldest group (age 61–85: ∼5 dots) when compared with the youngest groups (age 21–40: 7 dots). Surprisingly, despite decreased counting threshold, on average counting accuracy function (defined as the mean number of dots reported for each number tested) is largely unaffected by age, reflecting that the threshold loss can be primarily attributed to increased random errors. We further expanded this interesting finding to show that both young and old adults tend to over-count small numbers, but older observers over-count more.Conclusion/SignificanceHere we show that age reduces the ability to correctly enumerate in a glance, but the accuracy (veridicality), on average, remains unchanged with advancing age. Control experiments indicate that the degraded performance cannot be explained by optical, retinal or other perceptual factors, but is cortical in origin.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aging and Visual Counting

MacKeben

Chat

et al. 2010

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Older adults are less able to ignore environmental distractors than are young adults, as demonstrate d by age diVerences on simple visual attention tasks as well as more complex tasks such as reading and problemsolving in the face of distraction. For example, the presence of distractors in a visual display disrupts older adults' ability to nd a target item more than it disrupts young adults' ability (e.g., Cremer & Zeef, 1987;Lepage, Stuss, & Richer, 1999;Rabbitt, 1965; but see Kotary & Hoyer, 1995). As the number of distractors increases, so do age diVerences in errors and speed, unless the distractors are easily distinguished from the target or unless they occur in predictable locations (Scialfa, Esau, & JoVe, 1998;Zeef, Sonke, Kok, Buiten, & Kenemans, 1996;see Madden & Plude, 1993 for a discussion of sparing factors).…”

Section: Irrelevant Information From the Environment: The Impact Of Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory control over the present and the past

Lustig

Hasher

Tonev

2001

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the perspective of the Hasher, Zacks, and May (1999) inhibitory framework, optimal performance occurs only when there is control over nonrelevant information. Relative to a current, goal-directed task, there are at least two potential sources of nonrelevant information that need to be controlled. The rst is no longer relevant information. Such information would include, for example, a previous topic of conversation, or, in our work, a previous list of materials presented for study and recall. The second source of nonrelevant information is currently present (in thought or in the world) stimuli that are not relevant to the task at hand. Inhibitory processes are critical to the eVective control of both sources of information-the no longer relevant past and the irrelevant present. If inhibitory processes are ineYcient, irrelevant information from both the past and the present will disrupt performance on the current task. We illustrate this with studies showing the role of irrelevant information in reducing the working memory capacity of older adults and in slowing them down as they do even reasonably simple tasks.''Oops! My mind wandered for a second-could you repeat that, please? '' We've all had occasion to say something like this during a conversation, even one that we were interested in and motivated to attend to. Perhaps Requests for reprints should be addressed to L. Hasher,

show abstract

“…Several recent studies have examined adult age differences in the speed of subitizing and counting, with mixed results (Kotary & Hoyer, 1995;Nebes, Brady, & Reynolds, 1992;Sliwinski, 1997;Trick, Enns, & Brodeur, 1996). Sliwinski found that speed of subitizing decreased linearly across 20-to 80-year-old adults but that speed of counting did not differ across this age range.…”

Section: Enumerationmentioning

confidence: 99%