Literature DB >> 24070688

Contrast sensitivity, healthy aging and noise.

Rémy Allard1, Judith Renaud, Sandra Molinatti, Jocelyn Faubert.   

Abstract

At least three studies have used external noise paradigms to investigate the cause of contrast sensitivity losses due to healthy aging. These studies have used noise that was spatiotemporally localized on the target. Yet, Allard and Cavanagh (2011) have recently shown that the processing strategy can change with localized noise thereby violating the noise-invariant processing assumption and compromising the application of external noise paradigms. The present study reassessed the cause of age-related contrast sensitivity losses using spatiotemporally extended external noise (i.e., full-screen, continuously displayed dynamic noise). Contrast thresholds were measured for young (mean=24 years) and older adults (mean=69 years) at 3 spatial frequencies (1, 3 and 9 cpd) and 3 noise conditions (noise-free, local noise and extended noise). At the two highest spatial frequencies, the results were similar with local and extended noise: the sensitivity loss was mainly due to lower calculation efficiency. At the lowest spatial frequency, age-related contrast sensitivity losses were attributed to the internal equivalent noise when using extended noise and, like in previous studies, due to calculation efficiency with local noise. These results show that the interpretation of external noise paradigms can drastically differ depending on the noise type suggesting that external nose paradigms should use external noise that is spatiotemporally extended like internal noise to avoid triggering a processing strategy change. Contrary to previous studies, we conclude that healthy aging does not affect the calculation efficiency of the detection process at low spatial frequencies.
Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aging; Calculation efficiency; Contrast sensitivity function; External noise paradigms; Internal noise

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24070688     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2013.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  12 in total

1.  The effects of aging vitreous on contrast sensitivity function.

Authors:  Giancarlo A Garcia; Matin Khoshnevis; Kenneth M P Yee; Justin H Nguyen; Jeannie Nguyen-Cuu; Alfredo A Sadun; J Sebag
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Motion processing: the most sensitive detectors differ in temporally localized and extended noise.

Authors:  Rémy Allard; Jocelyn Faubert
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-05-15

3.  To characterize contrast detection, noise should be extended, not localized.

Authors:  Rémy Allard; Jocelyn Faubert
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-07-11

4.  Differential aging effects in motion perception tasks for central and peripheral vision.

Authors:  Juan A Sepulveda; Andrew J Anderson; Joanne M Wood; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Author Correction: Efficient Characterization and Classification of Contrast Sensitivity Functions in Aging.

Authors:  Fang-Fang Yan; Fang Hou; Zhong-Lin Lu; Xiaopeng Hu; Chang-Bing Huang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Aging affects gain and internal noise in the visual system.

Authors:  Fang-Fang Yan; Fang Hou; Hongyu Lu; Jia Yang; Lijun Chen; Yifan Wu; Ge Chen; Chang-Bing Huang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Increased Equivalent Input Noise in Glaucomatous Central Vision: Is it Due to Undersampling of Retinal Ganglion Cells?

Authors:  Rong Liu; MiYoung Kwon
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Editorial: Using Noise to Characterize Vision.

Authors:  Remy Allard; Jocelyn Faubert; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-16

9.  What Do Contrast Threshold Equivalent Noise Studies Actually Measure? Noise vs. Nonlinearity in Different Masking Paradigms.

Authors:  Alex S Baldwin; Daniel H Baker; Robert F Hess
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  The development of human visual cortex and clinical implications.

Authors:  Caitlin R Siu; Kathryn M Murphy
Journal:  Eye Brain       Date:  2018-04-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.