The influence of perceptual load on age differences in selective attention.

Abstract

The effect of perceptual load on age differences in visual selective attention was examined in 2 studies. In Experiment 1, younger and older adults made speeded choice responses indicating which of 2 target letters was present in a relevant set of letters in the center of the display while they attempted to ignore an irrelevant distractor in the periphery. The perceptual load of relevant processing was manipulated by varying the central set size. When the relevant set size was small, the adverse effect of an incompatible distractor was much greater for the older participants than for the younger ones. However, with larger relevant set sizes, this was no longer the case, with the distractor effect decreasing for older participants at lower levels of perceptual load than for younger ones. In Experiment 2, older adults were tested with the empty locations in the central set either unmarked (as in Experiment 1) or marked by small circles to form a group of 6 items irrespective of set size; the 2 conditions did not differ markedly, ruling out an explanation based entirely on perceptual grouping.

Brief Report: Perceptual Load and the Autism Spectrum in Typically Developed Individuals

“…One may equally conclude that individuals with Low AQ scores have abnormally low perceptual capacity. Indeed, in many reports of perceptual load, a set size of six is required to abolish interference (e.g., Maylor and Lavie 1998), whereas our Low AQ sample show no interference even at set size four. The implications for research on attention and perception that draw from the typically developed and clinical populations alike are clear.…”

“…Of central importance to the formation of our hypotheses are the recent findings of Remington et al (2009). In their study, participants with and without diagnoses of autism or Asperger's Syndrome completed a variant of the Eriksen Flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen 1974; as adapted by Maylor and Lavie 1998) to investigate the role of perceptual load on flanker interference in a response-conflict paradigm. The task was to discriminate between an 'X' and an 'N' presented briefly in one of six locations near the centre of the screen.…”

Pain and Attention: Attentional Disruption or Distraction?

“…Viewing distance was fixed at 60 cm. At this distance, the target and non-target letters each subtended a visual angle of 0.6 degrees vertically and 0.4 degrees horizontally and were positioned around the perimeter of an imaginary circle with a radius of 2.1 degrees from a central fixation point (adapted from Maylor and Lavie 25 ).…”

“…A display of 6 letters was used as the high load condition, because it has consistently been demonstrated to involve demands that exceed capacity limits. 25 A display of 2 letters was used as the low load condition. In the low load condition a target and a non-target were presented laterally.…”

“…A visual search task was used, which has been demonstrated to invoke controlled search with high demands on attentional capacity 33,37,38 that exceed capacity limits as reflected in reduced processing of taskirrelevant information. 19,20,24,25 The first experiment was designed to assess whether pain affects task performance, ie, the primary task paradigm, by presenting the visual search task in a mixed design, with unpredictably varying low and high load stimuli within blocks of stimuli, so subjects cannot strategically prepare themselves. By doing so, attention could not be allocated differently to low versus high load stimuli.…”