Display options
Cite
Chan JP, Kamino D, Binns MA, et al. Can changes in eye movement scanning alter the age-related deficit in recognition memory?. Front Psychol. 2011;2:92doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092.
Chan, J. P., Kamino, D., Binns, M. A., & Ryan, J. D. (2011). Can changes in eye movement scanning alter the age-related deficit in recognition memory?. Frontiers in psychology, 292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092
Chan, Jessica P K, et al. "Can changes in eye movement scanning alter the age-related deficit in recognition memory?." Frontiers in psychology vol. 2 (2011): 92. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092
Chan JP, Kamino D, Binns MA, Ryan JD. Can changes in eye movement scanning alter the age-related deficit in recognition memory?. Front Psychol. 2011 May 12;2:92. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092. eCollection 2011. PMID: 21687460; PMCID: PMC3110339.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2011 May 12;2:92. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092. eCollection 2011.

Can changes in eye movement scanning alter the age-related deficit in recognition memory?.

Frontiers in psychology

Jessica P K Chan, Daphne Kamino, Malcolm A Binns, Jennifer D Ryan

Affiliations

  1. Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Hospital Toronto, ON, Canada.

PMID: 21687460 PMCID: PMC3110339 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092

Abstract

Older adults typically exhibit poorer face recognition compared to younger adults. These recognition differences may be due to underlying age-related changes in eye movement scanning. We examined whether older adults' recognition could be improved by yoking their eye movements to those of younger adults. Participants studied younger and older faces, under free viewing conditions (bases), through a gaze-contingent moving window (own), or a moving window which replayed the eye movements of a base participant (yoked). During the recognition test, participants freely viewed the faces with no viewing restrictions. Own-age recognition biases were observed for older adults in all viewing conditions, suggesting that this effect occurs independently of scanning. Participants in the bases condition had the highest recognition accuracy, and participants in the yoked condition were more accurate than participants in the own condition. Among yoked participants, recognition did not depend on age of the base participant. These results suggest that successful encoding for all participants requires the bottom-up contribution of peripheral information, regardless of the locus of control of the viewer. Although altering the pattern of eye movements did not increase recognition, the amount of sampling of the face during encoding predicted subsequent recognition accuracy for all participants. Increased sampling may confer some advantages for subsequent recognition, particularly for people who have declining memory abilities.

Keywords: aging; eye movements; face perception; memory; recognition

References

  1. Memory. 2007 Jul;15(5):508-25 - PubMed
  2. J Cogn Neurosci. 1997 Jan;9(1):27-38 - PubMed
  3. Perception. 1977;6(3):313-26 - PubMed
  4. Neuropsychologia. 2010 Jul;48(9):2620-9 - PubMed
  5. Mem Cognit. 2005 Jan;33(1):98-106 - PubMed
  6. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Jul;25(4):997-1010 - PubMed
  7. Psychol Aging. 1991 Dec;6(4):623-30 - PubMed
  8. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1978 May;4(2):284-93 - PubMed
  9. Can J Exp Psychol. 2008 Mar;62(1):1-14 - PubMed
  10. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Dec;12(6):1043-7 - PubMed
  11. Mem Cognit. 2005 Sep;33(6):1017-24 - PubMed
  12. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2007 Nov;14(6):594-607 - PubMed
  13. Memory. 2002 Sep-Nov;10(5-6):365-79 - PubMed
  14. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Sep;26(5):1170-87 - PubMed
  15. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Jan;57(1):165-82 - PubMed
  16. Br J Psychol. 2008 Aug;99(Pt 3):379-94 - PubMed
  17. J Vis. 2008 Feb 20;8(2):6.1-17 - PubMed
  18. Vision Res. 1971 Sep;11(9):929-42 - PubMed
  19. Law Hum Behav. 2002 Dec;26(6):641-54 - PubMed
  20. J Gerontol. 1980 Sep;35(5):707-14 - PubMed
  21. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002 Nov;34(4):491-9 - PubMed
  22. Cereb Cortex. 2003 Dec;13(12):1344-51 - PubMed
  23. Iperception. 2010;1(1):7-27 - PubMed
  24. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Jan;73(1):266-83 - PubMed
  25. Psychol Sci. 2002 Mar;13(2):101-5 - PubMed
  26. Memory. 1999 Jan;7(1):65-78 - PubMed
  27. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Jun 1;6(6):255-260 - PubMed
  28. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1993 May;46(2):225-45 - PubMed
  29. Mem Cognit. 1996 Jul;24(4):403-16 - PubMed
  30. Br J Psychol. 2005 Nov;96(Pt 4):407-22 - PubMed
  31. Psychol Rev. 1962 Nov;69:477-91 - PubMed

Publication Types