Age Differences in the Distractor-Ratio Effect as a Function of Contrast Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latencies (RT) and eye movement measures were used to examine the effects of age and contrast on the distractor-ratio effect (DRE) in visual search. Younger and older adults performed a contrast x orientation conjunction search task where the ratios of white to black distractors and luminance contrast levels were varied. The distractor-ratio manipulation had similar effects for older and younger adults on both RT and the number of fixations required to find the target. Both measures were largely independent of distractor ratio on target-present trials, while both RTs and the fixation number increased with the number of items sharing the target's contrast polarity on target-absent trials. A more detailed analysis of eye movements suggested that younger adults were a bit more adept at attending to the smaller set of distractors, which presumably facilitated both overt and covert search. Generalized slowing can account for the age differences in RT, but the fixation number data speak to another mechanism, perhaps increased cautiousness on the part of the elderly when signal strength is low.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".