Limits...
Effects of aging and distractors on detection of redundant visual targets and capacity: do older adults integrate visual targets differently than younger adults?

Ben-David BM, Eidels A, Donkin C - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: In the redundant target effect, participants respond faster with two (redundant) targets.We compared the magnitude of this effect in younger and older adults, with and without distractors, in a simple visual-detection task.Parametric estimates indicated that these increases were generated by the older adults' increased difficulty in inhibiting the distractors, and not the results of either improved detection of redundant-targets, or of a generalized slowing of processing.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel; Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Research, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

ABSTRACT
In the redundant target effect, participants respond faster with two (redundant) targets. We compared the magnitude of this effect in younger and older adults, with and without distractors, in a simple visual-detection task. We employed additional measures that allow non-parametric assessment of performance (Townsend's capacity coefficient) and parametric estimates (Linear Ballistic Accumulator model). Older participants' latencies were slower, especially in the presence of distractors, and their calculated capacity indicators increased with distractors. Parametric estimates indicated that these increases were generated by the older adults' increased difficulty in inhibiting the distractors, and not the results of either improved detection of redundant-targets, or of a generalized slowing of processing.

Show MeSH
Response times for older and younger adults, across the two tasks (distractor-present and distractor-absent) and two types of target trials (single- and redundant-target).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4264737&req=5

pone-0113551-g001: Response times for older and younger adults, across the two tasks (distractor-present and distractor-absent) and two types of target trials (single- and redundant-target).

Mentions: Table 1 reveals the overall trend: Older adults are generally slower than younger adults (by an average of 62 ms), yet in the distractor-absent task, RTEs do not differ between age-groups (6 ms in both). Turning to distractor-present task, RTEs for older adults are twice as large as RTEs for younger adults. To examine this statistically, latencies were submitted to 2 X 2 X 2 repeated-measures ANOVAs with task-type (distractor-present vs. –absent) and redundancy (fastest single-target vs. redundant-target trials) as within-participant factors, and age-group (younger vs. older adults) as a between-participant factor. The analysis revealed a main effect for redundancy, F(1,42)  =  153.3, p <.001, ηp2  = .79, indicating a significant RTE across conditions and age-groups; a main effect for task-type, F(1,42)  =  12.4, p  = .001, ηp2  = .23, reflecting slower responses in the distractor-present task (note, the main effect describes an overall slowdown, whereas both tasks present the same double-target trials); and a significant main effect for age-group, F(1,42)  =  12.9, p <.001, ηp2  = .24, indicating that older adults were overall slower to respond. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction of task-type and redundancy, F(1,42)  =  64.5, p <.001, ηp2  = .61, reflecting overall larger RTEs in the distractor-present condition; a significant interaction of age-group and RTE, F(1,42)  =  10.0, p  = .003, ηp2  = .19, indicating that older adults had larger RTEs; and a significant interaction of the three variables, task-type, age and redundancy, F(1,42)  =  14.8, p <0.001, ηp2  = .26. A visual presentation of the triple interaction is available in Fig. 1.


Effects of aging and distractors on detection of redundant visual targets and capacity: do older adults integrate visual targets differently than younger adults?

Ben-David BM, Eidels A, Donkin C - PLoS ONE (2014)

Response times for older and younger adults, across the two tasks (distractor-present and distractor-absent) and two types of target trials (single- and redundant-target).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4264737&req=5

pone-0113551-g001: Response times for older and younger adults, across the two tasks (distractor-present and distractor-absent) and two types of target trials (single- and redundant-target).
Mentions: Table 1 reveals the overall trend: Older adults are generally slower than younger adults (by an average of 62 ms), yet in the distractor-absent task, RTEs do not differ between age-groups (6 ms in both). Turning to distractor-present task, RTEs for older adults are twice as large as RTEs for younger adults. To examine this statistically, latencies were submitted to 2 X 2 X 2 repeated-measures ANOVAs with task-type (distractor-present vs. –absent) and redundancy (fastest single-target vs. redundant-target trials) as within-participant factors, and age-group (younger vs. older adults) as a between-participant factor. The analysis revealed a main effect for redundancy, F(1,42)  =  153.3, p <.001, ηp2  = .79, indicating a significant RTE across conditions and age-groups; a main effect for task-type, F(1,42)  =  12.4, p  = .001, ηp2  = .23, reflecting slower responses in the distractor-present task (note, the main effect describes an overall slowdown, whereas both tasks present the same double-target trials); and a significant main effect for age-group, F(1,42)  =  12.9, p <.001, ηp2  = .24, indicating that older adults were overall slower to respond. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction of task-type and redundancy, F(1,42)  =  64.5, p <.001, ηp2  = .61, reflecting overall larger RTEs in the distractor-present condition; a significant interaction of age-group and RTE, F(1,42)  =  10.0, p  = .003, ηp2  = .19, indicating that older adults had larger RTEs; and a significant interaction of the three variables, task-type, age and redundancy, F(1,42)  =  14.8, p <0.001, ηp2  = .26. A visual presentation of the triple interaction is available in Fig. 1.

Bottom Line: In the redundant target effect, participants respond faster with two (redundant) targets.We compared the magnitude of this effect in younger and older adults, with and without distractors, in a simple visual-detection task.Parametric estimates indicated that these increases were generated by the older adults' increased difficulty in inhibiting the distractors, and not the results of either improved detection of redundant-targets, or of a generalized slowing of processing.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel; Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Research, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

ABSTRACT
In the redundant target effect, participants respond faster with two (redundant) targets. We compared the magnitude of this effect in younger and older adults, with and without distractors, in a simple visual-detection task. We employed additional measures that allow non-parametric assessment of performance (Townsend's capacity coefficient) and parametric estimates (Linear Ballistic Accumulator model). Older participants' latencies were slower, especially in the presence of distractors, and their calculated capacity indicators increased with distractors. Parametric estimates indicated that these increases were generated by the older adults' increased difficulty in inhibiting the distractors, and not the results of either improved detection of redundant-targets, or of a generalized slowing of processing.

Show MeSH