Skip to content
PaperFren

Cognitive aging

Do older adults miss rare targets less in visual search?

Goodhew SC, Edwards M · Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

When searching for rare guns among everyday objects, older adults missed fewer of them than younger adults, because they kept searching longer before giving up, which more than offset their slower processing.

Study at a glance

Design
Human experiment — Within-subject manipulation of target prevalence (4% vs 50% guns among everyday objects, block order randomised) with age as a continuous individual-difference predictor; regression, Spearman correlation and parallel mediation with Bayesian checks.
N
N=380 · 400 adults recruited on Testable Minds; 4 removed for missing or implausible ages and 16 as accuracy outliers, leaving 380 analysed.
Population
Online adults aged 20-80 recruited in age bands to span the lifespan, mainly from the UK, USA, South Africa and India
Outcome
Low-prevalence effect (drop in hit rate for the same 16 target images in the low- vs high-prevalence block); quitting threshold (low-prevalence target-absent RT) and processing speed (high-prevalence target-present RT)

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

On average people missed more guns when they were rare, a low-prevalence effect of 8.5 percentage points. Older age was linked to both longer persistence and slower processing, and to a smaller low-prevalence effect (Spearman rho of -.13, with Bayesian evidence about three times in favour of a real link). Mediation showed the two factors pulled in opposite directions: longer persistence shrank the age-related miss penalty, whereas slower processing enlarged it, so the net benefit of age was modest.

Methodology

Adults of all ages searched arrays of 10 photographed objects for a gun and pressed a key to say whether one was present. Each person did a low-prevalence block where only 4% of arrays had a gun and a high-prevalence block where 50% did, with the same 16 gun images appearing in both so that the drop in detection could be attributed to prevalence alone. Time taken to reject gun-free arrays in the rare-target block indexed how long people persisted (quitting threshold), and time to find guns in the frequent-target block indexed processing speed. Recruitment was spread across age bands so age could be analysed as a continuous variable.

Limitations

The age effect was small, explaining far less than individual differences such as cognitive failures or working memory, and it came with much slower searching, so it does not justify preferring older staff for security or medical screening, as the authors stress. Age was measured, not manipulated, and the data are cross-sectional, so cohort differences (for example in computer experience) could contribute. The online sample of internet-using, independently living older adults is a best-case group, and quitting threshold and processing speed were inferred from response times rather than measured directly; the study was not preregistered.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.