Display options
Cite
Ramkhalawansingh R, Keshavarz B, Haycock B, et al. Age Differences in Visual-Auditory Self-Motion Perception during a Simulated Driving Task. Front Psychol. 2016;7:595doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00595.
Ramkhalawansingh, R., Keshavarz, B., Haycock, B., Shahab, S., & Campos, J. L. (2016). Age Differences in Visual-Auditory Self-Motion Perception during a Simulated Driving Task. Frontiers in psychology, 7595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00595
Ramkhalawansingh, Robert, et al. "Age Differences in Visual-Auditory Self-Motion Perception during a Simulated Driving Task." Frontiers in psychology vol. 7 (2016): 595. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00595
Ramkhalawansingh R, Keshavarz B, Haycock B, Shahab S, Campos JL. Age Differences in Visual-Auditory Self-Motion Perception during a Simulated Driving Task. Front Psychol. 2016 Apr 28;7:595. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00595. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27199829; PMCID: PMC4848465.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2016 Apr 28;7:595. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00595. eCollection 2016.

Age Differences in Visual-Auditory Self-Motion Perception during a Simulated Driving Task.

Frontiers in psychology

Robert Ramkhalawansingh, Behrang Keshavarz, Bruce Haycock, Saba Shahab, Jennifer L Campos

Affiliations

  1. Research/iDAPT, Toronto Rehabilitation InstituteToronto, ON, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of TorontoToronto, ON, Canada.
  2. Research/iDAPT, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Toronto, ON, Canada.
  3. Research/iDAPT, Toronto Rehabilitation InstituteToronto, ON, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of TorontoToronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoToronto, ON, Canada.

PMID: 27199829 PMCID: PMC4848465 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00595

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that visual-auditory cue integration may change as a function of age such that integration is heightened among older adults. Our goal was to determine whether these changes in multisensory integration are also observed in the context of self-motion perception under realistic task constraints. Thus, we developed a simulated driving paradigm in which we provided older and younger adults with visual motion cues (i.e., optic flow) and systematically manipulated the presence or absence of congruent auditory cues to self-motion (i.e., engine, tire, and wind sounds). Results demonstrated that the presence or absence of congruent auditory input had different effects on older and younger adults. Both age groups demonstrated a reduction in speed variability when auditory cues were present compared to when they were absent, but older adults demonstrated a proportionally greater reduction in speed variability under combined sensory conditions. These results are consistent with evidence indicating that multisensory integration is heightened in older adults. Importantly, this study is the first to provide evidence to suggest that age differences in multisensory integration may generalize from simple stimulus detection tasks to the integration of the more complex and dynamic visual and auditory cues that are experienced during self-motion.

Keywords: Multisensory Integration and Aging; older driver; principle of inverse effectiveness; self-motion perception; visual-auditory integration

References

  1. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002 Mar;57(2):P101-15 - PubMed
  2. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2002 Jun;14(1):147-52 - PubMed
  3. Curr Biol. 2002 Dec 10;12(23):2014-7 - PubMed
  4. J Psychosom Res. 2003 Sep;55(3):197-200 - PubMed
  5. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2003;47:181-94 - PubMed
  6. Exp Brain Res. 2004 Jan;154(2):246-54 - PubMed
  7. Perception. 2004;33(1):49-65 - PubMed
  8. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):162-9 - PubMed
  9. Vision Res. 2005 Jun;45(13):1679-92 - PubMed
  10. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9 - PubMed
  11. Neurobiol Aging. 2006 Aug;27(8):1155-63 - PubMed
  12. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006 Jun;12(2):67-78 - PubMed
  13. Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jan;176(1):43-53 - PubMed
  14. Neuroreport. 2007 Jul 2;18(10):1077-81 - PubMed
  15. Neurosci Lett. 2008 Apr 25;435(3):204-9 - PubMed
  16. Perception. 2008;37(7):1037-43 - PubMed
  17. Traffic Inj Prev. 2008 Oct;9(5):489-99 - PubMed
  18. J Neurosci. 2009 Dec 9;29(49):15601-12 - PubMed
  19. Ear Hear. 2010 Oct;31(5):636-44 - PubMed
  20. Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Nov;42(6):1661-71 - PubMed
  21. J Vis. 2010 Sep 01;10(11):23 - PubMed
  22. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Jun;58(6):1097-103 - PubMed
  23. Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Sep 22;278(1719):2840-7 - PubMed
  24. Hum Factors. 2011 Aug;53(4):415-26 - PubMed
  25. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Jul;123(7):1422-8 - PubMed
  26. Exp Brain Res. 2012 May;218(4):551-65 - PubMed
  27. J Neurophysiol. 2012 Oct;108(8):2282-91 - PubMed
  28. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2012 Jun;24(3):285-9 - PubMed
  29. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013 Feb;142(2):184-94 - PubMed
  30. Accid Anal Prev. 2013 Aug;57:80-6 - PubMed
  31. Psychol Aging. 2013 Sep;28(3):802-12 - PubMed
  32. Front Psychol. 2013 Sep 03;4:575 - PubMed
  33. Exp Brain Res. 2014 Mar;232(3):827-36 - PubMed
  34. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:78-84 - PubMed
  35. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014 Aug;15(8):520-35 - PubMed
  36. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014 Sep 24;6:250 - PubMed
  37. Ergonomics. 1980 Dec;23(12):1151-1160 - PubMed
  38. J Neurosci. 1987 Oct;7(10):3215-29 - PubMed
  39. Exp Brain Res. 1973 Mar 19;16(5):476-91 - PubMed

Publication Types