Literature DB >> 31264631

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

Alix L de Dieuleveult1,2,3, Anne-Marie Brouwer2, Petra C Siemonsma4,5, Jan B F van Erp2,3, Eli Brenner6.   

Abstract

Older individuals seem to find it more difficult to ignore inaccurate sensory cues than younger individuals. We examined whether this could be quantified using an interception task. Twenty healthy young adults (age 18-34) and twenty-four healthy older adults (age 60-82) were asked to tap on discs that were moving downwards on a screen with their finger. Moving the background to the left made the discs appear to move more to the right. Moving the background to the right made them appear to move more to the left. The discs disappeared before the finger reached the screen, so participants had to anticipate how the target would continue to move. We examined how misjudging the disc's motion when the background moves influenced tapping. Participants received veridical feedback about their performance, so their sensitivity to the illusory motion indicates to what extent they could ignore the task-irrelevant visual information. We expected older adults to be more sensitive to the illusion than younger adults. To investigate whether sensorimotor or cognitive load would increase this sensitivity, we also asked participants to do the task while standing on foam or counting tones. Background motion influenced older adults more than younger adults. The secondary tasks did not increase the background's influence. Older adults might be more sensitive to the moving background because they find it more difficult to ignore irrelevant sensory information in general, but they may rely more on vision because they have less reliable proprioceptive and vestibular information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Sensory integration; activities of daily living; dual task; elderly; healthy aging

Year:  2018        PMID: 31264631     DOI: 10.1163/22134808-00002596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Multisens Res        ISSN: 2213-4794            Impact factor:   2.286


  6 in total

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

Authors:  Yajie Zhang; Eli Brenner; Jacques Duysens; Sabine Verschueren; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 1.972

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

Authors:  Lucy Evans; Rebecca A Champion; Simon K Rushton; Daniela Montaldi; Paul A Warren
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Physiological Synchrony in EEG, Electrodermal Activity and Heart Rate Detects Attentionally Relevant Events in Time.

Authors:  Ivo V Stuldreher; Nattapong Thammasan; Jan B F van Erp; Anne-Marie Brouwer
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  The response to background motion: Characteristics of a movement stabilization mechanism.

Authors:  Emily M Crowe; Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  How similar are responses to background motion and target displacements?

Authors:  Emily M Crowe; Patou Vellekoop; Chermaine van Meteren; Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 2.064

6.  Hand movements respond to any motion near the endpoint.

Authors:  Emily M Crowe; Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 2.157

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.