Lifespan changes in attention revisited: Everyday visual search.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared visual search under everyday conditions among participants across the life span (healthy participants in 4 groups, with average age of 6 years, 8 years, 22 years, and 75 years, and 1 group averaging 73 years with a history of falling). The task involved opening a door and stepping into a room find 1 of 4 everyday objects (apple, golf ball, coffee can, toy penguin) visible on shelves. The background for this study included 2 well-cited laboratory studies that pointed to different cognitive mechanisms underlying each end of the U-shaped pattern of visual search over the life span (Hommel et al., 2004; Trick & Enns, 1998). The results recapitulated some of the main findings of the laboratory study (e.g., a U-shaped function, dissociable factors for maturation and aging), but there were several unique findings. These included large differences in the baseline salience of common objects at different ages, visual eccentricity effects that were unique to aging, and visual field effects that interacted strongly with age. These findings highlight the importance of studying cognitive processes in more natural settings, where factors such as personal relevance, life history, and bodily contributions to cognition (e.g., limb, head, and body movements) are more readily revealed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".