Aging and Sensitivity to Illusory Target Motion With or Without Secondary Tasks

Dieuleveult, Alix Lucile de; Brouwer, A.; Siemonsma, Petra C.; Erp, J.B.F. van; Brenner, Eli

doi:10.1163/22134808-00002596

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also consistent with the reweighting explanation are recent findings on changes in induced motion in older observers ( de Dieuleveult, Brouwer, Siemonsma, van Erp & Brenner, 2018 ; de Dieuleveult, Perry, Siemonsma, Brouwer & van Erp, 2019 ). Induced motion is commonly experienced as illusory movement of an object in the opposite direction to the movement of its surrounding background ( Duncker, 1929 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Induced motion is commonly experienced as illusory movement of an object in the opposite direction to the movement of its surrounding background ( Duncker, 1929 ). Dieuleveult et al (2018) argued that the stronger influence of the background motion in older participants was due to lower sensitivity in proprioceptive and vestibular systems and thus greater dependence on visual information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detection of scene-relative object movement and optic flow parsing across the adult lifespan

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moving around safely relies critically on our ability to detect object movement. This is made difficult because retinal motion can arise from object movement or our own movement. Here we investigate ability to detect scene-relative object movement using a neural mechanism called optic flow parsing. This mechanism acts to subtract retinal motion caused by self-movement. Because older observers exhibit marked changes in visual motion processing, we consider performance across a broad age range (N = 30, range: 20-76 years). In Experiment 1 we measured thresholds for reliably discriminating the scene-relative movement direction of a probe presented among three-dimensional objects moving onscreen to simulate observer movement. Performance in this task did not correlate with age, suggesting that ability to detect scene-relative object movement from retinal information is preserved in ageing. In Experiment 2 we investigated changes in the underlying optic flow parsing mechanism that supports this ability, using a well-established task that measures the magnitude of globally subtracted optic flow. We found strong evidence for a positive correlation between age and global flow subtraction. These data suggest that the ability to identify object movement during self-movement from visual information is preserved in ageing, but that there are changes in the flow parsing mechanism that underpins this ability. We suggest that these changes reflect compensatory processing required to counteract other impairments in the ageing visual system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of scene-relative object movement and optic flow parsing across the adult lifespan

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an earlier study, Berard et al (2012) found that old age affects the ability to down-regulate the influence of such visual information in a walking task. In an original experiment (de Dieuleveult et al, 2018), we investigate whether this effect generalizes to another paradigm, namely the paradigm of Brouwer et al (2003) that used the Duncker illusion (or induced motion) (Duncker, 1929). The object appears to move differently due to movement in its surrounding (Soechting et al, 2001; Zivotofsky, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…OA’s interception points (called taps) were more deviated to the left for a right background motion and to the right for a left background motion than those of YA. These results could reflect a reduced ability to ignore or downregulate irrelevant sensory information and/or a greater reliance on vision because of unreliable somatosensory and proprioceptive systems (de Dieuleveult et al, 2018). If the ability to ignore or downregulate irrelevant sensory information is indeed reduced in OA, our interception task may be a useful tool to diagnose sensory integration problems that could underlie (future) problems in ADL.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current interception task was adjusted from its original large screen (49 inch) set-up to a smaller tablet (12,3 inch) set-up in order to increase clinical applicability: a smaller setup is more convenient for clinical practice and could also be transported to measure individuals that are less fit and cannot easily travel to a clinician. The experiment reported here was roughly the same as in de Dieuleveult et al (2018). YA and OA intercepted disappearing targets moving downwards on the tablet with a horizontally moving background.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Simple Target Interception Task as Test for Activities of Daily Life Performance in Older Adults

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research showed that a simple target interception task reveals differences between younger adults (YA) and older adults (OA) on a large screen under laboratory conditions. Participants intercept downward moving objects while a horizontally moving background creates an illusion of the object moving in the opposite direction of the background. OA are more influenced by this illusory motion than YA. OA seem to be less able to ignore irrelevant sensory information than YA. Since sensory integration relates to the ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADL), this interception task can potentially signal ADL issues. Here we investigated whether the results of the target interception task could be replicated using a more portable setup, i.e., a tablet instead of a large touch screen. For YA from the same, homogeneous population, the main effects were replicated although the task was more difficult in the tablet set-up. After establishing the tablet’s validity, we analyzed the response patterns of OA that were less fit than the OA in previous research. We identified three different illusion patterns: a (large) illusion effect (indicating over integration), a reverse illusion effect, and no illusion effect. These different patterns are much more nuanced than previously reported for fit OA who only show over integration. We propose that the patterns are caused by differences in the samples of OA (OA in the current sample were older and had lower ADL scores), possibly modulated by increased task difficulty in the tablet setup. We discuss the effects of illusory background motion as a function of ADL scores using a transitional model. The first pattern commences when sensory integration capability starts to decrease, leading to a pattern of over-integration (illusion effect). The second pattern commences when compensatory mechanisms are not sufficient to counteract the effect of the background motion, leading to direction errors in the same direction as the background motion (reverse illusion). The third pattern commences when the task requirements are too high, leading OA to implement a probabilistic strategy by tapping toward the center of the screen.

show abstract

Is the manual following response an attempt to compensate for inferred self-motion?

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If the surrounding of a visual target unexpectedly starts to move during a fast goal-directed hand movement, the hand reflexively moves along with it. This is known as the ‘manual following response’. One explanation for this response is that it is a compensation for inferred self-motion in space. Previous studies have shown that background motion gives rise to both postural responses and deviations in goal-directed hand movements. To evaluate whether compensation for inferred self-motion is responsible for the manual responses we examined whether galvanic stimulation of the vestibular system would give rise to similar deviations in hand movements. Standing participants tried to quickly tap on targets that were presented on a horizontal screen. Participants could infer self-motion on some of the trials, either from galvanic vestibular stimulation or from background motion. Both perturbations took place during the hand movement. It took both the head and hand about 45 ms longer to respond to background motion than to respond to galvanic stimulation. The head responded in a similar manner to both types of perturbations. The hand responded about as expected to galvanic stimulation, but much more vigorously to background motion. Thus, the manual response to background motion is probably not a direct consequence of trying to compensate for inferred self-motion. Perhaps the manual following response is a consequence of an error in binding motion information to objects.

show abstract

Aging and Sensitivity to Illusory Target Motion With or Without Secondary Tasks

Cited by 15 publications

References 54 publications

Detection of scene-relative object movement and optic flow parsing across the adult lifespan

Detection of scene-relative object movement and optic flow parsing across the adult lifespan

A Simple Target Interception Task as Test for Activities of Daily Life Performance in Older Adults

Is the manual following response an attempt to compensate for inferred self-motion?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About