Evidence for no increased surround modulation in the aging visual system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-related changes in perceptual performance are thought to be due, in part, to a degradation in intracortical inhibition for older observers (Leventhal et al., 2003). Although decreased inhibition can sometimes lead to improved performance (e.g., Betts et al., 2005), inhibitory mechanisms are necessary for focusing on central targets in the receptive field while ignoring surrounding patterns. Saarela and Herzog (2008) investigated the effect of surround masking on visual suppression in young observers, and found that the presence of a surround annulus does not modulate central target detection. If inhibitory mechanisms are impaired in older observers, we would expect a larger effect of surround masking as a function of age. Six younger (mean age 27 years) and six older (mean age 73 years) observers detected a target within the centre of an iso-oriented centre-surround pattern in a 2-IFC task. Stimuli consisted of Gabor gratings at six different base contrast levels (0, 0.0025, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.08). The diameter of the centre of the stimuli (3.6 deg) was half the size as the surrounding mask (7.2 deg). Two interleaved staircases varied the contrast of the central target to obtain target discrimination thresholds. Consistent with previous findings, surround masking did not produce an effect for young observers. Although higher thresholds for target detection were observed for older adults, there was no significant effect of the surrounding mask across age (F(1,10) = 0.0919, p = 0.77). In addition, the extent of the modulation did not vary as a function of mask contrast (F(4,40) = 0.2603, p = 0.75). These results are not consistent with the hypothesis that intracortical inhibitory mechanisms are less effective in elderly observers. Future research will extend this result by investigating the effects of time-course, orientation, and surround mask configuration as a function of age-related changes in inhibitory mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".