We investigated the effects of old age on search, subitizing, and counting of difficult-to-find targets. In Experiment 1, young and older adults enumerated targets (Os) with and without distractors (Qs). Without distractors, the usual subitization-counting function occurred in both groups, with the same subitization span of 3.3 items. Subitization disappeared with distractors; older adults were slowed more overall by their presence but enumeration rates were not slowed by ageing either with or without distractors. In contrast, search rates for a single target (O among Qs) were twice as slow for older as for young adults. Experiment 2 tested and ruled out one account of age-equivalent serial enumeration based on the need to subvocalize numbers as items are enumerated. Alternative explanations based on the specific task differences between detecting and enumerating stimuli are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonJCampbellFWFrancisMR (1976). The magic number 4 ± 0: A new look at visual numerosity judgments.Perception5, 327–334.
2.
BallKKBeardBLRoenkerDLMillerRLGriggsDS (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view.Journal of the Optical Society of America A5, 2210–2219.
3.
BasakCVerhaeghenP (2003). Subitizing speed, subitizing range, counting speed, the Stroop effect, and aging: Capacity differences and speed equivalence.Psychology and Aging18, 240–249.
4.
CerellaJ (1990). Aging and information-processing rate. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging3rd ed., pp. 201–221San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
5.
CerellaJPoonLWWilliamsD (1980). Age and the complexity hypothesis. In L. W. Poon (Ed.), Aging in the 1980spp. 332–340Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
6.
CohenJDRomeroRDServan-SchreiberDFarahMJ (1994). Mechanisms of spatial attention: The relation of macrostructure to microstructure in parietal neglect.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience6, 377–387.
7.
DehaeneSCohenL (1994). Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: Neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 958–975.
8.
DuncanJHumphreysGW (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review96, 433–458.
9.
DuncanJHumphreysGW (1992). Beyond the search surface: Visual search and attentional engagement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18, 578–588.
10.
FolkCLEgethHKwakH (1988). Subitizing: Direct apprehension or serial processing?.Perception & Psychophysics44, 313–320.
11.
FolkCLLincourtAE (1996). The effects of age on guided conjunction search.Experimental Aging Research22, 99–118.
12.
FosterJKBehrmannMStussDT (1995). Aging and visual search: Generalized cognitive slowing or selective deficit in attention.Aging and Cognition2, 279–299.
13.
GallistelCRGelmanR (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation.Cognition44, 43–74.
14.
GilchristIDHarveyM (2000). Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search.Current Biology10, 1209–1212.
15.
GilmoreGCTobiasTRRoyerFL (1985). Aging and similarity grouping in visual search.Journal of Gerontology40, 586–592.
16.
HeSCavanaghPIntriligatorJ (1997). Many objects can be enumerated in afterimages when they are not crowded [Abstract].Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society2, 3.
17.
HeimAW (1968). AH4 TestWindsor, UK:NFER-Nelson.
18.
HoogeIThCFrensMA (2000). Inhibition of saccade return (ISR): Spatio-temporal properties of saccade programming.Vision Research40, 3415–3426.
19.
HornJLCattellRB (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence.Acta Psychologica26, 107–129.
20.
HorowitzTSWolfeJM (1998). Visual search has no memory.Nature394, 575–577.
21.
HorowitzTSWolfeJM (2001). Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search.Perception & Psychophysics63, 272–285.
22.
HumphreyDGKramerAF (1997). Age differences in visual search for feature, conjunction, and triple-conjunction targets.Psychology and Aging12, 704–717.
23.
HumphreysGWMüllerHJ (1993). Search via recursive rejection (SERR): A connectionist model of visual search.Cognitive Psychology25, 43–110.
24.
HumphreysGWOlsonARomaniCRiddochMJ (1996). Competitive mechanisms of selection by space and object: A neuropsychological approach. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attentionNew York:Psychonomic Press.
25.
KaufmanELLordMWReeseTWVolkmanJ (1949). The discrimination of visual number.American Journal of Psychology62, 498–525.
26.
KleinRFarrellM (1989). Search performance without eye-movements.Perception & Psychophysics46, 476–482.
27.
KleinRMMacInnesWJ (1999). Inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search.Psychological Science10, 346–351.
28.
KlineDWScialfaCT (1996). Visual and auditory aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging4th ed., pp. 181–203London:Academic Press.
29.
LeeDKIttiLKochCBraunJ (1999). Attention activates winner-take-all competition among visual filters.Nature2, 375–381.
30.
LindenbergerUMarsiskeMBaltesPB (2000). Memorizing while walking: Increase in dual-task costs from young adulthood to old age.Psychology and Aging15, 417–436.
31.
MaddenDJPierceTWAllenPA (1996). Adult age differences in the use of distractor homogeneity during visual search.Psychology and Aging11, 454–474.
32.
MandlerGSheboBJ (1982). Subitizing—an analysis of its component processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General111, 1–22.
33.
MaylorEAWingAM (1996). Age differences in postural stability are increased by additional cognitive demands.Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences51, P143–P154.
34.
McDowdJMShawRJ (2000). Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition2nd ed., pp. 221–292Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35.
OkenBSKishiyamaSSKayeJA (1994). Age-related differences in visual-search task-performance: Relative stability of parallel but not serial search.Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology7, 163–168.
36.
OwsleyCBallKKeetonDM (1995). Relationship between visual sensitivity and target localization in older adults.Vision Research35, 579–587.
37.
OwsleyCBurton-DannerKJacksonGR (2000). Aging and spatial localization during feature search.Gerontology46, 300–305.
38.
PashlerH (1987). Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis.Perception & Psychophysics41, 191–201.
39.
PetersonMSKramerAFWangRXFIrwinDEMcCarleyJS (2001). Visual search has memory.Psychological Science12, 287–292.
40.
PludeDJDoussard-RooseveltJA (1989). Aging, selective attention, and feature integration.Psychology and Aging4, 98–105.
41.
PylyshynZW (1989). The role of location indexes in spatial perception: A sketch of the FINST spatial-index model.Cognition32, 65–97.
42.
PylyshynZW (1998). Visual indexes in spatial vision and imagery. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Visual attentionpp. 215–231Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
43.
PylyshynZW (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision.Cognition80, 127–158.
44.
PylyshynZWStormRW (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism.Spatial Vision3, 179–197.
45.
RastleKDavisMH (2002). On the complexities of measuring naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance28, 307–314.
46.
RavenJCRavenJCourtJH (1988). The Mill Hill vocabulary scaleLondon:H. K. Lewis & Co. Ltd.
47.
SagiDJuleszB (1984). Detection versus discrimination of visual orientation.Perception13, 619–628.
48.
SalthouseTA (1991). Theoretical perspectives on cognitive agingHillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
49.
ScialfaCTHamalukE (2001). Aging, texture segmentation, and exposure duration: Evidence for a deficit in preattentive processing.Experimental Aging Research27, 123–135.
50.
ScialfaCTJoffeKM (1998). Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity.Perception & Psychophysics60, 1067–1082.
51.
SekulerABBennettPJMamelakM (2000). Effects of aging on the useful field of view.Experimental Aging Research26, 103–120.
52.
SimonTJVaishnaviS (1996). Subitizing and counting depend on different attentional mechanisms: Evidence from visual enumeration in afterimages.Perception & Psychophysics58, 915–926.
53.
SliwinskiM (1997). Aging and counting speed: Evidence for process-specific slowing.Psychology and Aging12, 38–49.
54.
SvensonOSjöbergK (1983). Speeds of subitizing and counting processes in different age groups.The Journal of Genetic Psychology142, 203–211.
55.
TownsendJT (1972). Some results on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology25, 168–199.
56.
TreismanAMGeladeG (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology12, 97–136.
57.
TreismanAMSatoS (1990). Conjunction search revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16, 459–478.
58.
TreismanASoutherJ (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General114, 285–310.
59.
TrickLMEnnsJTBrodeurDA (1996). Life span changes in visual enumeration: The number discrimination task.Development Psychology32, 925–932.
60.
TrickLMPylyshynZW (1993). What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention: Evidence for limited capacity preattentive processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19, 331–351.
61.
TrickLMPylyshynZW (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision.Psychological Review101, 80–102.
62.
VerhaeghenPCerellaJ (2002). Aging, executive control, and attention: A review of meta-analyses.Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews26, 849–857.
63.
VerhaeghenPSteitzDWSliwinskiMJCerellaJ (2003). Aging and dual-task performance: A meta-analysis.Psychology and Aging18, 443–460.
64.
WatsonDGHumphreysGW (1999). The magic number four and temporo-parietal damage: Neurological impairments in counting targets amongst distractors.Cognitive Neuropsychology16, 609–629.
65.
WatsonDGMaylorEA (2002). Aging and visual marking: Selective deficits for moving stimuli.Psychology and Aging17, 321–339.
66.
WatsonDGMaylorEABruceLAM (2003). The role of eye movements in enumerationManuscript submitted for publication.
67.
WatsonDGMaylorEAMansonNJ (2002). Aging and enumeration: A selective deficit for the subitization of targets among distractors.Psychology and Aging17, 496–504.
68.
WechslerD (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—RevisedNew York:Psychological Corporation.
69.
WolfeJM (1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1, 202–238.
70.
WolfeJM (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attentionpp. 13–74Hove, UK:Psychology Press.
71.
WolfeJM (2003). Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search.Trends in Cognitive Sciences7, 70–76.
72.
WolfeJMCaveKRFranzelSL (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance15, 419–433.
73.
ZelinskyGJSheinbergDL (1997). Eye movements during parallel-serial visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23, 244–262.
