Effect of age and pop out distracter on attended field of view
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the functional field of view (FFOV) of younger and older individuals using the attended field of view (AFOV), a method which allows for eye and head movement. The impact of a pop out distracter and a dual task on the FFOV measure was also investigated. Nine young adult (25 ± 6 years) and 9 older participants (72 ± 4 years) took part in the experiment. The AFOV test involved the binocular detection and localization of a white target (Landolt-C) in a field of 24 white rings (distracters). The further AFOV tests were modified to include the presence of a pop out distracter, a dual task condition, and a combination of the two. Older observers had lower viewing efficiency (log [1/presentation time]) in all conditions (pooled mean across conditions: older: 0.05 ± 0.02; younger: 0.48 ± 0.04) than the younger group. The addition of dual or a pop out distracter did not affect the older group (mean difference ∼104 ± 150 ms and ∼124 ± 122 ms respectively) but the additional pop out distracter reduced the efficiency of the younger group for targets near fixation (mean difference ∼68 ± 35 ms). Better viewing efficiency was observed in younger individuals compared to older individuals. Difficulty in disregarding irrelevant stimuli and thereby resorting to inefficient search strategy is proposed as the reason for the differences. The finding that both older and younger individuals are not affected significantly by the presence of the irrelevant pop out distracter has implications in situations such as driving or hazard avoidance. In such scenarios, search performance is likely not impaired beyond what is found with distracters (visual clutter) in the environment. Investigar el campo visual funcional en pacientes jóvenes y mayores, utilizando el campo visual esperado: un método que permite el movimiento de los ojos y de la cabeza. También se investigó el impacto de una distracción repentina y de una doble tarea sobre la medición del campo visual funcional. Se incluyó en el experimento a nueve jóvenes (25 ± 6 años) y 9 mayores (72 ± 4 años). La prueba del campo visual esperado incluyó la detección y localización binocular de un objetivo blanco (C de Landolt) en un campo de veinticuatro anillos blancos (distracciones). Se modificaron posteriormente las pruebas del campo visual esperado para incluir la presencia de una distracción repentina,, una situación de doble tarea, y una combinación de las dos pruebas. Los observadores de más edad reflejaron una menor eficiencia visual (log [1/tiempo de presentación]) en todas las situaciones, (media conjunta de todas las situaciones: Mayores: 0,05 ± 0,02; Jóvenes: 0,48 ± 0,04) que el grupo de menor edad. La adición de una tarea dual o una distracción repentina no afectó al grupo de mayor edad (diferencia media ∼104 mseg ± 150 mseg y ∼124 mseg ± 122 mseg respectivamente), aunque el distractor sobresaliente adicional redujo la eficacia del grupo más joven para los objetivos cercanos a la fijación (diferencia media ∼68 mseg ± 35 mseg). Se observó una mejor eficiencia visual en los pacientes más jóvenes, en comparación a los mayores. La dificultad de ignorar los estímulos irrelevantes, y por tanto, de recurrir a una estrategia de búsqueda ineficaz, se propone como motivo de las diferencias. El hallazgo de que tanto los pacientes jóvenes como los mayores no se ven afectados en demasía por la presencia de una distracción repentina irrelevante tiene implicaciones para situaciones tales como la conducción o evitar peligros. En tales escenarios, no es probable que dicho desempeño de búsqueda se vea afectado más allá de los hallazgos obtenidos con las distracciones (desorden visual) en el entorno.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it