2017
DOI: 10.1167/17.2.15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of aging on figure-ground perception: Convexity context effects and competition resolution

Abstract: We examined age-related differences in figure-ground perception by exploring the effect of age on Convexity Context Effects (CCE; Peterson & Salvagio, 2008). Experiment 1, using Peterson and Salvagio's procedure and black and white stimuli consisting of 2 to 8 alternating concave and convex regions, established that older adults exhibited reduced CCEs compared to younger adults. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that this age difference was found at various stimulus durations and sizes. Experiment 4 compared CC… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One such broader age-related functional change observed in prior studies is older adults’ reduced object perception abilities (Burke et al, 2011 ; Ryan et al, 2012 ; Scheerer and Marrone, 2014 ; see “Introduction” Section above). Recent data suggests that this functional deficit may in part be attributed to an age-related reduction in the inhibitory processing necessary for figure-ground segregation (specifically, inhibition of the groundside; Anderson et al, 2016 ; Lass et al, 2017 ). For instance, Anderson et al ( 2016 ) demonstrated that compared to young adults, older adults are slower and less accurate to categorize enclosed silhouettes as “novel” when a portion of a meaningful object is suggested on its groundside.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One such broader age-related functional change observed in prior studies is older adults’ reduced object perception abilities (Burke et al, 2011 ; Ryan et al, 2012 ; Scheerer and Marrone, 2014 ; see “Introduction” Section above). Recent data suggests that this functional deficit may in part be attributed to an age-related reduction in the inhibitory processing necessary for figure-ground segregation (specifically, inhibition of the groundside; Anderson et al, 2016 ; Lass et al, 2017 ). For instance, Anderson et al ( 2016 ) demonstrated that compared to young adults, older adults are slower and less accurate to categorize enclosed silhouettes as “novel” when a portion of a meaningful object is suggested on its groundside.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We attributed the additional time to ambiguity resolution, suggested by Goldreich and Peterson's ( 2012 ) Bayesian observer (cf. Lass et al, 2017 for evidence consistent with this claim from tests of older participants). The results of Exp.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Another possibility is that iterative cortico-thalamic activity interacts with cortical mechanisms involved in inhibitory competition between the two possible interpretations of homo-convex displays. Lass et al ( 2017 ) found that older participants showed reduced or no convex figure CEs for homo-convex displays whereas they showed intact convex figure CEs for hetero-convex displays. They attributed their results to impaired suppressive mechanisms involved in inhibitory competition in older participants (cf., Betts et al, 2005 , 2009 ; Anderson et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Older adults may be particularly vulnerable to noise due to the degradation of sensory information brought about by healthy ageing (Monge & Madden, 2016). It has been argued that older adults also have specific difficulties when competing regions need to be assigned figure or ground status during perceptual organization (Anderson et al, 2016;Lass et al, 2017). This is assumed to stem from deficits in inhibitory processing that are particularly pronounced when competition is high and in scenes that are more ambiguous or difficult to resolve.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%