Aging and solid shape recognition: Vision and haptics.

The ability of 114 younger and older adults to recognize naturally-shaped objects was evaluated in three experiments. The participants viewed or haptically explored six randomly-chosen bell peppers (Capsicum annuum) in a study session and were later required to judge whether each of twelve bell peppers was "old" (previously presented during the study session) or "new" (not presented during the study session). When recognition memory was tested immediately after study, the younger adults' (Experiment 1) performance for vision and haptics was identical when the individual study objects were presented once. Vision became superior to haptics, however, when the individual study objects were presented multiple times. When 10- and 20-min delays (Experiment 2) were inserted in between study and test sessions, no significant differences occurred between vision and haptics: recognition performance in both modalities was comparable. When the recognition performance of older adults was evaluated (Experiment 3), a negative effect of age was found for visual shape recognition (younger adults' overall recognition performance was 60% higher). There was no age effect, however, for haptic shape recognition. The results of the present experiments indicate that the visual recognition of natural object shape is different from haptic recognition in multiple ways: visual shape recognition can be superior to that of haptics and is affected by aging, while haptic shape recognition is less accurate and unaffected by aging.

Aging and the visual perception of exocentric distance.

The ability of 18 younger and older adults to visually perceive exocentric distances was evaluated. The observers judged the extent of fronto-parallel and in-depth spatial intervals at a variety of viewing distances from 50cm to 164.3cm. Most of the observers perceived in-depth intervals to be significantly smaller than fronto-parallel intervals, a finding that is consistent with previous studies. While none of the individual observers' judgments of exocentric distance were accurate, the judgments of the older observers were significantly more accurate than those of the younger observers. The precision of the observers' judgments across repeated trials, however, was not affected by age. The results demonstrate that increases in age can produce significant improvements in the visual ability to perceive the magnitude of exocentric distances.

Aging and visual length discrimination: sequential dependencies, biases, and the effects of multiple implicit standards.

Younger (20-25 years of age) and older (61-79 years) adults were evaluated for their ability to visually discriminate length. Almost all experiments that have utilized the method of single stimuli to date have required participants to judge test stimuli relative to a single implicit standard (for a rare exception, see Morgan, On the scaling of size judgements by orientational cues, Vision Research, 1992, 32, 1433-1445). In the current experiments, we not only asked participants to judge lengths relative to a single implicit standard, but they also compared test stimuli to two different implicit standards within the same blocks of trials. We analyzed our participants' judgments to evaluate whether significant sequential dependencies occurred. We found that while individual younger and older adults possessed similar length difference thresholds and exhibited similar overall biases, the judgments of older adults within individual blocks of trials were more strongly biased (than younger adults) by preceding responses (i.e., their judgments on any given trial were more strongly affected by responses to previously viewed stimuli). In addition, the judgments of both younger and older adults were more strongly biased by preceding responses in the blocks of trials with multiple implicit standards. Overall, our results are consistent with the operation of the tracking mechanism described by Criterion-setting theory (Lages and Treisman, Spatial frequency discrimination: Visual long-term memory or criterion setting? Vision Research, 1998, 38, 557-572).