Influence of aging on visual attention and peripheral perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When searching for an item among distractors, we distribute our attention to a certain degree within our peripheral visual field. It has been suggested that in aging, there is a reduced attentional distribution, leading to visual and attentional declines. To investigate attentional distribution, 27 younger and 16 older adults performed a pop-out visual search task. With gaze-contingent methods, we presented different visible window sizes around participants’ fixation during the task. We extracted the size of each participant’s attentional window based on their search times for the different visible window sizes. To test whether performance in the visual search task was related to peripheral visual function, participants performed a contrast detection task and two motion detection tasks (local and global motion perception). In these tasks, stimuli were presented at two different peripheral eccentricities (5° and 10° distant from fixation point). Overall, we observed that older adults took longer to report the target’s presence compared to younger adults, t(41) = 6.31, p<.001. Compared to younger participants, they also had a significantly smaller attentional window, t(41)=2.16, p=.036. In addition, older adults had higher contrast detection thresholds, F(1, 41) = 23.23, p < .001, and higher thresholds in local, F(1,41) = 4.53, p=.039, and global motion perception, F(1,41) = 27.58, p<.001, contrary to the idea that motion perception is preserved with aging. Overall, we observed a reduced attentional distribution as well as lowered contrast thresholds and lowered motion perception in aging. These findings, specific to the peripheral visual field, are compatible with the hypothesis of a functional decline of the visual dorsal stream in normal 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".