Overriding age differences in attentional capture with top-down processing.

Two experiments investigated the influence of top-down information on adult age differences in the ability to search for singleton targets using spatial cues. In Experiment 1, both younger and older adults were equally able to use target-related top-down information (target feature predictability) to avoid attentional capture by uninformative (25% valid) cues. However, during informative (75% valid) cue conditions, older adults demonstrated less efficient use of this cue-related top-down information. The authors extended these findings in Experiment 2 using cues that were either consistent or inconsistent with top-down feature settings. Results from this second experiment showed that although older adults were capable of avoiding attentional capture when provided with top-down information related to target features, capture effects for older adults were notably larger than those of younger adults when only bottom-up information was available. The authors suggest that older adults' ability to use top-down information during search to avoid or attend to cues may be resource-limited.

[1]  Jay Pratt,et al.  Attentional Capture in Younger and Older Adults , 1999 .

[2]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance , 2001 .

[3]  Adult age differences in attentional allocation during memory search. , 1992, Psychology and aging.

[4]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Age-related effects of attentional and oculomotor capture by onsets and color singletons as a function of experience. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[5]  Lars Nyberg,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience of aging : linking cognitive and cerebral aging , 2004 .

[6]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. , 1997, Psychological review.

[7]  Anthony D Wagner,et al.  Item-and Task-Level Processes in Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex : Positive and Negative Correlates of Encoding , 2003 .

[8]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Attentional capture and aging: implications for visual search performance and oculomotor control. , 1999, Psychology and aging.

[9]  Scott A. Huettel,et al.  Age-Related Changes in NeuralActivity During Visual Perception and Attention , 2004 .

[10]  J. Theeuwes.  Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  S. Tipper,et al.  On the Strategic Modulation of the Time Course of Facilitation and Inhibition of Return , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[12]  Julia Spaniol,et al.  Adult age differences in the implicit and explicit components of top-down attentional guidance during visual search. , 2005, Psychology and aging.

[13]  U. Ansorge,et al.  Top-down contingencies in peripheral cuing: The roles of color and location. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[15]  Andrew B. Leber,et al.  It’s under control: Top-down search strategies can override attentional capture , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[16]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Contextual cueing reduces interference from task-irrelevant onset distractors , 2001 .

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

[18]  David J. Madden,et al.  Aging and Visual Attention , 2007, Current directions in psychological science.

[19]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[21]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Recent advances in psychology and aging , 2004 .

[22]  David J. Madden,et al.  Age-related changes in visual attention , 2003 .

[23]  T. Salthouse.  Speed of behavior and its implications for cog-nition , 1985 .

[24]  F. Post,et al.  Behavior, aging and the nervous system , 1966 .

[25]  H J Müller,et al.  Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Denise C. Park,et al.  Handbook of the Psychology of Aging , 1979 .

[28]  J. Juola,et al.  Automatic and voluntary control of attention in young and older adults. , 2000, The American journal of psychology.

[29]  H. Egeth,et al.  Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Age Differences in the Control of Looking Behavior: Do You Know Where Your Eyes Have Been? , 2000, Psychological science.

[31]  David J. Madden,et al.  Searching from the Top Down: Ageing and Attentional Guidance during Singleton Detection , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[32]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  J. Theeuwes.  Perceptual selectivity for color and form , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Roberto Cabeza,et al.  Age-related preservation of top-down attentional guidance during visual search. , 2004, Psychology and aging.

[35]  R. West.  The transient nature of executive control processes in younger and older adults , 2001 .

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