Adult age differences in visual search accuracy: attentional guidance and target detectability.

Previous research, relying primarily on reaction time measures of highly accurate performance, suggests that both younger and older adults can increase the efficiency of visual search by guiding attention to a candidate subset of items. The authors investigated attentional guidance when accuracy was well below ceiling to focus more specifically on the role of perceptual processes. In the most difficult condition (conjunction search), the likelihood of missing a target was greater for older adults than for younger adults, and this effect was not attributable entirely to generalized slowing. Both age groups were able to improve search efficiency by attending to a distinct subset of display items, indicating that attentional guidance to perceptual features does not exhibit age-related decline. A signal-detection model of the conjunction search data demonstrated that the age difference represented an age-related decline in target detectability.

[1]  David J. Madden,et al.  Adult Age Differences in the Use of Distractor Homogeneity During Visual Search , 1996 .

[2]  David J. Madden,et al.  Selective preservation of selective attention , 1993 .

[3]  T. Salthouse.  Mechanisms of Age Cognition Relations in Adulthood , 1992 .

[4]  J. Myerson,et al.  The information-loss model: a mathematical theory of age-related cognitive slowing. , 1990, Psychological review.

[5]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  D. Madden.  Age differences and similarities in the improvement of controlled search. , 1982, Experimental aging research.

[7]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Attention: Selection, Awareness, and Control , 1993 .

[8]  C. Scialfa,et al.  Age differences in the useful field of view: an eye movement analysis. , 1994, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[9]  D. Stuss,et al.  Aging and visual search: Generalized cognitive slowing or selective deficit in attention? , 1995 .

[10]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[11]  David J. Madden,et al.  Adult age differences in attentional selectivity and capacity , 1990 .

[12]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[13]  David J. Madden,et al.  Aging, attention, and the use of meaning during visual search , 1987 .

[14]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[15]  T. Salthouse.  The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. , 1996, Psychological review.

[16]  C. Scialfa.  Chapter 26 Adult Age Differences in Visual Search: the Role of Non-Attentional Processes , 1990 .

[17]  A. Treisman.  Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[18]  F. Craik,et al.  The handbook of aging and cognition , 1992 .

[19]  D. Plude,et al.  Aging, selective attention, and feature integration. , 1989, Psychology and aging.

[20]  H. Egeth,et al.  Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition , 1982 .

[21]  J. Townsend,et al.  Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: An evaluative review , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  F. Wilcoxon.  SOME RAPID APPROXIMATE STATISTICAL PROCEDURES , 1950 .

[23]  C. Folk,et al.  The effects of age on guided conjunction search. , 1996, Experimental aging research.

[24]  F. Royer,et al.  Aging and similarity grouping in visual search. , 1985, Journal of gerontology.

[25]  M. Fahle,et al.  Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: a model for error rates in visual search. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Z W Pylyshyn,et al.  Searching through subsets: a test of the visual indexing hypothesis. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[27]  C. Scialfa,et al.  Age differences in target identification as a function of retinal location and noise level: examination of the useful field of view. , 1987, Psychology and aging.

[28]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  J. Cerella,et al.  Adult information processing: Limits on loss. , 1993 .

[30]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  John F. Larish,et al.  Aging and filtering by movement in visual search. , 1996, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[32]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What Can 1 Million Trials Tell Us About Visual Search? , 1998 .

[33]  D. Madden,et al.  Adult age differences in the rate of information extraction during visual search. , 1991, Journal of gerontology.

[34]  J. Enns.  The Development of attention : research and theory , 1990 .

[35]  J Cerella,et al.  Age-related decline in extrafoveal letter perception. , 1985, Journal of gerontology.

[36]  R. Keefover,et al.  Aging and cognition. , 1998, Neurologic clinics.

[37]  Rose T. Zacks,et al.  Visual search times assessed without reaction times: a new method and an application to aging , 1993 .

[38]  T. Salthouse.  What do adult age differences in the Digit Symbol Substitution Test reflect? , 1992, Journal of gerontology.

[39]  A F Kramer,et al.  Age differences in visual search for feature, conjunction, and triple-conjunction targets. , 1997, Psychology and aging.

[40]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Second-order parallel processing: visual search for the odd item in a subset. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  Charles T. Scialfa,et al.  Age differences in feature and conjunction search: Implications for theories of visual search and generalized slowing , 1997 .