Influence of aging on visual attention and peripheral perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During visual search, our attention extends around each fixation. It has been suggested that, in aging, there is a reduced attentional field, leading to visual function declines. To investigate the attentional field, 30 younger and 20 older adults performed a pop-out visual search task. We estimated each participant's attentional field size based on their search times in the presence of different sizes of gaze-contingent visible windows (25°, 20°, and 15° around fixation). Further, we tested whether performance in the visual search task was related to peripheral visual function. Participants performed a contrast discrimination task and two motion perception tasks (local and global motion perception). In these tasks, stimuli were presented at two different peripheral eccentricities (5° and 10°). Overall, older adults took longer than younger adults to report the presence of the target in the control full-view pop-out search task. Compared to younger participants, they also had a significantly smaller attentional field. In addition, irrespective of eccentricity, older adults had higher peripheral contrast discrimination thresholds and a higher threshold in global motion perception, but not local. We also found negative correlations between attentional field size and thresholds for contrast discrimination and for global motion perception for older adults. In conclusion, we observed reduced attentional fields in aging, which were associated with lowered contrast and lowered global motion perception. These results highlight the importance of spatial covert attention in peripheral visual function and support the notion of a decline in the functions of the dorsal visual network 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".