↓ Skip to main content

Can Changes in Eye Movement Scanning Alter the Age-Related Deficit in Recognition Memory?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can Changes in Eye Movement Scanning Alter the Age-Related Deficit in Recognition Memory?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00092
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 69 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Other 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 49%
Neuroscience 9 12%
Engineering 5 7%
Computer Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2011.
All research outputs
#18,313,878
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,828
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,968
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#198
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.