Reduced spatial attentional distribution in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults show decline in visual search performance, but the underlying cause remains unclear. It has been suggested that older adults' altered performance may be related to reduced spatial attention to peripheral visual information compared with younger adults. In this study, 18 younger (M = 21.6 years) and 16 older (M = 69.1 years) participants performed pop-out and serial visual search tasks with variously sized gaze-contingent artificial central scotomas (3°, 5°, or 7° diameter). By occluding central vision, we measured how attention to the periphery was contributing to the search performance. We also tested the effect of target eccentricity on search times and eye movements. We hypothesized that, if attention is reduced primarily in the periphery in older adults, we would observe longer search times for more eccentric targets and with central occlusion. During the pop-out search, older adults showed a steeper decline in search performance with increasing eccentricity and central scotoma size compared with younger adults. In contrast, during the serial search, older adults had longer search times than younger adults overall, independent of target eccentricity and scotoma size. Longer search times were attributed to higher cost-per-item slopes, indicating increased difficulty in simultaneously processing complex symbols made up of separable features in aging, possibly stemming from challenges in spatially binding individual features. Altogether, our findings point to fewer attentional resources of simultaneous visual processing to distribute over space or separable features of objects, consistent with decreased dorsal visual stream functioning in aging.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".