Literature DB >> 3268186

Age differences in target identification as a function of retinal location and noise level: examination of the useful field of view.

C T Scialfa1, D W Kline, B J Lyman.   

Abstract

Foveal and peripheral target detection were compared in young adults (M age = 22 years) and older adults (M age = 66 years) who were optically corrected for the viewing distance. In a two-alternative, forced-choice task, target letters were presented at 0 degree to 10.5 degrees from fixation. Targets were presented alone, flanked on each side by one noise element (i.e., nontarget letter), or embedded in a horizontal row of 19 noise elements. An Age X Noise Level X Location interaction was obtained, wherein age differences were largest for peripheral targets presented in noise. Slope analyses of latency data showed that the performance of young adults in the high-noise condition was most similar to that of older adults in the low-noise condition. At the functional level, results indicated that aging is associated with a restricted useful field of view. In addition, the data suggest that age differences in search can be described by a model in which older adults take smaller perceptual samples from the visual scene and scan these samples more slowly than do the young adults.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3268186     DOI: 10.1037//0882-7974.2.1.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Aging        ISSN: 0882-7974


  17 in total

1.  Impaired attentional disengagement in older adults with useful field of view decline.

Authors:  Joshua D Cosman; Monica N Lees; John D Lee; Matthew Rizzo; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.077

2.  Limits of spatial attention in three-dimensional space and dual-task driving performance.

Authors:  George J Andersen; Rui Ni; Zheng Bian; Julie Kang
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  2010-11-01

3.  Reduction in direction discrimination with age and slow speed is due to both increased internal noise and reduced sampling efficiency.

Authors:  Lotte-Guri Bogfjellmo; Peter J Bex; Helle K Falkenberg
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  A search-by-clusters model of visual search: fits to data from younger and older adults.

Authors:  William J Hoyer; John Cerella; Norbou G Buchler
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 4.077

5.  Differential age-related changes in localizing a target among distractors across an extended visual field.

Authors:  Jing Feng; Fergus I M Craik; Brian Levine; Sylvain Moreno; Gary Naglie; HeeSun Choi
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2016-10-11

6.  Visual processing speed.

Authors:  Cynthia Owsley
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Sensorimotor and cognitive factors associated with the age-related increase of visual field dependence: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Catherine P Agathos; Delphine Bernardin; Delphine Huchet; Anne-Catherine Scherlen; Christine Assaiante; Brice Isableu
Journal:  Age (Dordr)       Date:  2015-06-30

8.  What predicts changes in useful field of view test performance?

Authors:  Melissa Lunsman; Jerri D Edwards; Ross Andel; Brent J Small; Karlene K Ball; Daniel L Roenker
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2008-12

9.  Time course of target recognition in visual search.

Authors:  Andreas Kotowicz; Ueli Rutishauser; Christof Koch
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Visual search for features and conjunctions following declines in the useful field of view.

Authors:  Joshua D Cosman; Monica N Lees; John D Lee; Matthew Rizzo; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Exp Aging Res       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.645

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.