How does the information processing system change with age?

Figure 1

Idealized time-accuracy functions using Equation 1, displaying a difference in asymptote (A), take-off (B), and processing rate (C).

Figure 1

Idealized time-accuracy functions using Equation 1, displaying a difference in asymptote (A), take-off (B), and processing rate (C).

Figure 2

Figure 3

(A) Predicted and observed reversed error magnitude (in degrees) for older and younger adults in Experiment 1. (B, C) Percentage of errors in each error magnitude bin (errors measured in degrees) at each 500 ms RT bin for younger (B) and older (C) adults.

Figure 3

(A) Predicted and observed reversed error magnitude (in degrees) for older and younger adults in Experiment 1. (B, C) Percentage of errors in each error magnitude bin (errors measured in degrees) at each 500 ms RT bin for younger (B) and older (C) adults.

Figure 4

Example of a trial from Experiment 2. On each trial four stimuli were presented briefly then masked. Three of the stimuli (nontargets) shared the same spatial frequency, thus the target had a unique spatial frequency. In the example above, the target was at the bottom left. After response, feedback (the correct orientation) was shown at the target location.

Figure 4

Example of a trial from Experiment 2. On each trial four stimuli were presented briefly then masked. Three of the stimuli (nontargets) shared the same spatial frequency, thus the target had a unique spatial frequency. In the example above, the target was at the bottom left. After response, feedback (the correct orientation) was shown at the target location.

Figure 5

Predicted and observed reversed error magnitudes for older and younger adults in Experiment 2. Panel (A) includes data from all trials whereas panels (B) and (C) comprise data from trials in which there was a large (B) or small (C) difference between the spatial frequency of the unique target and the distracting items.

Figure 5

Predicted and observed reversed error magnitudes for older and younger adults in Experiment 2. Panel (A) includes data from all trials whereas panels (B) and (C) comprise data from trials in which there was a large (B) or small (C) difference between the spatial frequency of the unique target and the distracting items.

Figure 6

Percentage of errors in each error magnitude bin (errors measured in degrees) at each 500 ms RT bin for (A) younger and (B) older adults in Experiment 2.

Figure 6

Percentage of errors in each error magnitude bin (errors measured in degrees) at each 500 ms RT bin for (A) younger and (B) older adults in Experiment 2.

Figure 7

Schematic of procedure from Experiment 3. Two stimuli were presented for a given duration and then masked. A probe then indicated the target object whose orientation participants had to report.

Figure 7

Schematic of procedure from Experiment 3. Two stimuli were presented for a given duration and then masked. A probe then indicated the target object whose orientation participants had to report.

Figure 8

(A) Predicted and observed reversed error magnitudes for older and younger adults in Experiment 3. (B, C) Percentage of errors in each error magnitude bin (errors measured in degrees) at each 500 ms RT bin for younger (B) and older adults (C) in Experiment 3.

Figure 8

(A) Predicted and observed reversed error magnitudes for older and younger adults in Experiment 3. (B, C) Percentage of errors in each error magnitude bin (errors measured in degrees) at each 500 ms RT bin for younger (B) and older adults (C) in Experiment 3.

Figure 9

ISO performance traces for Experiments 1–3. NB: SD and LD refer to trials in which the target-distractor difference was small or large, respectively.

Figure 9

ISO performance traces for Experiments 1–3. NB: SD and LD refer to trials in which the target-distractor difference was small or large, respectively.

Table 1

Parameter estimates for younger adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 1 for each participant (indicated by the top row).

Table 1

Parameter estimates for younger adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 1 for each participant (indicated by the top row).

Table 2

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons for younger adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 1.

Table 2

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons for younger adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 1.

Table 3

Parameter estimates for younger adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 2 for each participant (indicated by the top row).

Table 3

Parameter estimates for younger adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 2 for each participant (indicated by the top row).

Table 4

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons in Experiment 2.

Table 4

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons in Experiment 2.

Table 5

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons in Experiment 2.

Table 5

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons in Experiment 2.

Table 6

Parameter estimates for young adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 3.

Table 6

Parameter estimates for young adults (A) and older adults (B) in Experiment 3.

Table 7

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons in Experiment 3.

Table 7

Parameter estimates derived from model comparisons in Experiment 3.

Table 8

Mean difference between response and distractor orientation in Experiment 3.

Table 8

Mean difference between response and distractor orientation in Experiment 3.

Table 9

Sequential effects (errors and similarities in degrees). *indicates p < 0.05.

Table 9

Sequential effects (errors and similarities in degrees). *indicates p < 0.05.