4.5 Article

How Does Aging Affect Social Attention? A Test of Competing Theories Using Multilevel Meta-Analysis

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbac052

关键词

Gaze; cueing; Social; cognitive aging; Visual attention

资金

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT170100096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a meta-analysis to assess how normal adult aging influences gaze-cued attention, a core social-cognitive process. The results showed that older adults have a reduced overall gaze-cueing effect compared to younger adults. The study provides the clearest evidence to date of the association between adult aging and a reduction in gaze-cued attention, as well as potential mechanisms underlying this age effect.
Objectives The present study provides a meta-analytic assessment of how gaze-cued attention-a core social-cognitive process-is influenced by normal adult aging. Methods A multilevel meta-analysis of standardized mean changes was conducted on gaze-cueing effects. Age effects were quantified as standardized mean differences in gaze-cueing effect sizes between young and older adult samples. Results We identified 82 gaze-cueing effects (k = 26, N = 919 participants). Of these, 37 were associated with young adults (k = 12, n = 438) and 45 with older adults (k = 14, n = 481). Relative to younger adults, older adults had a reduced gaze-cueing effect overall, g = -0.59, with this age effect greater when the cues were predictive, g = -3.24, rather than nonpredictive, g = -0.78. Discussion These results provide the clearest evidence to date that adult aging is associated with a reduction in gaze-cued attention. The results also speak to potential mechanisms of this age effect. In line with cognitive decline models of aging, it was demonstrated that when gaze cues were predictive, only younger adults seem to benefit, suggesting that older adults exhibit a particularly reduced capacity to use gaze cues volitionally.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据