Visual form perception from age 20 through 80 years

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1730-1739

  McKendrick, Allison M ^a   Weymouth, Anne E ^a   Battista, Josephine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FACILITATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EEXPERIMENT; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFRACTION ERROR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE; TONOMETRY; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUAL THRESHOLD;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTION PERCEPTION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84875447209     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-10974     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Owsley C. Aging and vision. Vision Res. 2011;51:1610-1622.
2. Hennelly ML, Barbur JL, Edgar DF, Woodward EG. The effect of age on the light scattering characteristics of the eye. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1998;18:197-203.
3. Pierscionek BK, Weale RA. The optics of the eye-lens and lenticular senescence. A review. Doc Ophthalmol. 1995;89: 321-335.
4. Elliot DB, Whitaker D, MacVeigh D. Neural contribution to spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity decline in healthy aging eyes. Vision Res. 1990;30:541-547.
5. Shinomori K, Werner JS. Senescence of the temporal impulse response to a luminous pulse. Vision Res. 2003;43:617-627.
6. Spear PD. Neural bases of visual deficits during aging. Vision Res. 1993;33:2589-2609.
7. Leventhal AG, Wang Y, Pu M, Zhou Y, Ma Y. GABA and its agonists improved visual cortical function in senescent monkeys. Science. 2003;300:812-815.
8. Schmolesky M, Wang Y, Pu M, Leventhal AG. Degradation of stimulus selectivity of visual cortical cells in senescent rhesus monkeys. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3:384-390.
9. Yu S, Wang Y, Li X, Zhou Y, Leventhal AG. Functional degradation of extrastriate visual cortex in senescent rhesus monkeys. Neuroscience. 2006;140:1023-1029.
10. Loffler G. Perception of contours and shapes: low and intermediate stage mechanisms. Vision Res. 2008;48:2106-2127.
11. Betts LR, Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ. The effects of aging on orientation discrimination. Vision Res. 2007;47:1769.
12. Delahunt PB, Hardy JL, Werner JS. The effect of senescence on orientation discrimination and mechanism tuning. J Vis. 2008; 8:5.1-5.9.
13. Govenlock SW, Taylor CP, Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ. The effect of aging on the orientational selectivity of the human visual system. Vision Res. 2009;49:164-172.
14. Latham K, Barrett BT. No effect of age on spatial interval discrimination as a function of eccentricity or separation. Curr Eye Res. 1998;17:1010-1017.
15. Whitaker D, Elliott DB, MacVeigh D. Variations in hyperacuity performance with age. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1992;12:29-32.
16. Chan YM, Battista J, McKendrick AM. Aging effects on collinear facilitation. J Vis. 2012;12:1-10.
17. Chubb C, Sperling G, Solomon JA. Texture interactions determine perceived contrast. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86:9631-9635.
18. Karas R, McKendrick AM. Aging alters surround modulation of perceived contrast. J Vis. 2009;9:11.1-11.9.
19. Karas R, McKendrick AM. Increased surround modulation of perceived contrast in the elderly. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88: 1298-1308.
20. McKendrick AM, Weymouth AE, Battista J. The effect of normal aging on closed contour shape discrimination. J Vis. 2010;10:1.1-1.9.
21. Roudaia E, Farber LE, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB. The effects of aging on contour discrimination in clutter. Vision Res. 2011; 51:1022-1032.
22. Casco C, Robol V, Barollo M, Cansino S. Effects of aging on visual contour integration and segmentation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:3955-3961.
23. Del Viva MM, Agostini R. Visual spatial integration in the elderly. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:2940-2946.
24. Weymouth AE, McKendrick AM. Shape perception is altered by normal aging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:3226-3233.
25. Habak C, Wilkinson F, Wilson HR. Aging disrupts the neural transformations that link facial identity across views. Vision Res. 2008;48:9-15.
26. Habak C, Wilkinson F, Wilson HR. Preservation of shape discrimination in aging. J Vis. 2009;9:1-8.
27. McKendrick AM, Battista J. Perceptual learning of contour integration is not compromised in the elderly. J Vis. 2012;13: 5.1-5.10.
28. Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:831-836.
29. Polat U, Sagi D. Lateral interactions between spatial channels: suppression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments. Vision Res. 1993;33:993-999.
30. Woods RL, Nugent AK, Peli E. Lateral interactions: size does matter. Vision Res. 2002;42:733-745.
31. Wetherill G, Levitt H. Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1965;18:1-10.
32. Yu C, Klein SA, Levi DM. Surround modulation of perceived contrast and the role of brightness induction. J Vis. 2001;1:18-31.
33. Battista J, Badcock DR, McKendrick AM. Center-surround visual motion processing in migraine. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:6070-6076.
34. Levi DM, Yu C, Kuai S, Rislove E. Global contour processing in amblyopia. Vision Res. 2007;47:512-524.
35. Glass L. The Moire effect from random dots. Nature. 1969; 223:578-580.
36. Owsley C, Sekuler R, Siemsen D. Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Res. 1983;23:689-699.
37. McKendrick AM, Sampson GP, Walland MJ, Badcock DR. Contrast sensitivity changes due to glaucoma and normal aging: low spatial frequency losses in magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48: 2115-2122.
38. Roudaia E, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB. The effect of aging on contour integration. Vision Res. 2008;48:2767-2774.
39. Polat U. Functional architecture of long-range perceptual interactions. Spat Vis. 1999;12:143-162.
40. Polat U, Mizobe K, Pettet MW, Kasamatsu T, Norcia AM. Collinear stimuli regulate visual responses depending on cell's contrast threshold. Nature. 1998;391:580-584.
41. Sterkin A, Sterkin A, Polat U. Response similarity as a basis for perceptual binding. J Vis. 2008;8:17.11-17.12.
42. Karas R, McKendrick AM. Age related changes to perceptual surround suppression of moving stimuli. Seeing Perceiving. 2012;25:409-424.
43. Schwabe L, Ichida JM, Shushruth S, Mangapathy P, Angelucci A. Contrast-dependence of surround suppression in Macaque V1: experimental testing of a recurrent network model. NeuroImage. 2010;52:777-792.
44. Angelucci A, Bressloff PC. Contribution of feedforward, lateral and feedback connections to the classical receptive field center and extra-classical receptive field surround of primate V1 neurons. Prog Brain Res. 2006;154:94-118.
45. Webb BS, Tinsley CJ, Barraclough NE, Parker A, Derrington AM. Gain control from beyond the classical receptive field in primate primary visual cortex. Vis Neurosci. 2003;20:221-230.
46. Tailby C, Solomon SG, Peirce JW, Metha AB. Two expressions of "surround suppression" in V1 that arise independent of cortical mechanisms of suppression. Vis Neurosci. 2007;24: 99-109.
47. Harman A, Abrahams B, Moore S, Hoskins R. Neuronal density in the human retinal ganglion cell layer from 16-77 years. Anat Rec. 2000;260:124-131.
48. Fu Y, Wang XS, Wang YC, et al. The effects of aging on the strength of surround suppression of receptive field of V1 cells in monkeys. Neuroscience. 2010;169:874-881.
49. Betts LR, Taylor CP, Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ. Aging reduces center-surround antagonism in visual motion processing. Neuron. 2005;45:361-366.
50. Tadin D, Lappin JS, Gilroy LA, Blake R. Perceptual consequences of centre-surround antagonism in visual motion processing. Nature. 2003;424:312-315.