Increased Age Linked to Delayed Face Detection in Ambiguous Stimuli

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Previous research has identified correlations between individual differences, such as age, and perceptual processes. However, the specific roles of these factors in face and house detection and the categorization of ambiguous stimuli remain inadequately understood. To address this issue, we employed a face/house categorization task to investigate how participants of different ages perceive human agents versus non-natural objects amidst varying levels of visual noise (40%, 50%, 60%, and 70%). Our results revealed that older participants exhibit longer reaction times (RT) in face detection under low-noise, ambiguous conditions (40% noise)—pointing toward a selective effect of age on face processing rather than on other object categories, such as houses.

Keywords


Alghamdi, R. J., Murphy, M. J., Goharpey, N., & Crewther, S. G. (2021). The age-related changes in speed of visual perception, visual verbal and visuomotor performance, and nonverbal intelligence during early school years. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 667612.
Akbari, F., Asivandzadehchaharmahali, S., & Narmashiri, A. (2024). Paranormal believers are quicker but less accurate in rejecting the presence of the target in conjunction visual search compared to skeptics. bioRxiv, 2024.2004.2025.590450. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.25.590450
Marosi, C., Fodor, Z., & Csukly, G. (2019). From basic perception deficits to facial affect recognition impairments in schizophrenia. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 8958. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45231-x
Bortolon, C., Capdevielle, D., & Raffard, S. (2015). Face recognition in schizophrenia disorder: A comprehensive review of behavioral, neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 53, 79-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.03.006
Narmashiri, A. , Sohrabi, A. and Hatami, J. (2018). Perceptual Processing in Paranormal Beliefs: A Study of Reaction Time and Bias. Social Cognition6(2), 113-124.
Narmashiri, A. , sohrabi, A. and Hatami, J. (2020). Brainwave Pattern in Paranormal Beliefs: An EEG-based study in Severe and Mild groups. Neuropsychology5(19), 89-98. doi: 10.30473/clpsy.2020.48062.1455
Narmashiri, A., Sohrabi, A., Hatami, J., Amirfakhraei, A., & Haghighat, S. (2019). Investigating the Role of Brain Lateralization and Gender in Paranormal Beliefs. BCN, 10(6), 589-596. https://doi.org/10.32598/bcn.9.10.923.1
Sağdıç, M., Izgi, B., Yapici Eser, H., Ercis, M., Üçok, A., & Kuşçu, K. (2024). Face and emotion recognition in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, ultra-high risk for psychosis, unaffected siblings, and healthy controls in a sample from Turkey. Schizophr Res Cogn, 36, 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scog.2024.100301
Betts, L. R., Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2007). The effects of aging on orientation discrimination. Vision research, 47(13), 1769-1780.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological review, 94(2), 115.
Boutet, I., & Faubert, J. (2006). Recognition of faces and complex objects in younger and older adults. Memory & cognition, 34, 854-864.
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107.
Dosher, B. A., & Lu, Z.-L. (2000). Noise exclusion in spatial attention. Psychological science, 11(2), 139-146.
Epstein, R., & Kanwisher, N. (1998). A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature, 392(6676), 598-601.
Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is" special" about face perception? Psychological review, 105(3), 482.
Fry, R., Tanaka, J. W., Cohan, S., Wilmer, J. B., Germine, L. T., & DeGutis, J. (2023). Effects of age on face perception: Reduced eye region discrimination ability but intact holistic processing. Psychology and aging.
Germine, L. T., Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2011). Where cognitive development and aging meet: Face learning ability peaks after age 30. Cognition, 118(2), 201-210.
Grady, C. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nature reviews neuroscience, 13(7), 491-505.
Grady, C. L., Randy McIntosh, A., Horwitz, B., & Rapoport, S. I. (2000). Age-related changes in the neural correlates of degraded and nondegraded face processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(1-3), 165-186.
Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Visual recognition: As soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychological science, 16(2), 152-160.
Heekeren, H. R., Marrett, S., Bandettini, P. A., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2004). A general mechanism for perceptual decision-making in the human brain. Nature, 431(7010), 859-862.
Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(6), 255-260.
Narmashiri, A., Akbari, F., Sohrabi, A., & Hatami, J. (2023). Conspiracy beliefs are associated with a reduction in frontal beta power and biases in categorizing ambiguous stimuli. Heliyon, 9(10), e20249.
Narmashiri, A., Tanha, A., Sohrabi, A., & Hatami, J. (2025). How Do Belief Systems Influence the Categorization of Ambiguous Stimuli? Research Square, PREPRINT (Version 1).
Narmashiri, A., Javad, H., & and Khosrowabadi, R. (2024). The role of dual mechanism control in paranormal beliefs: Evidence from behavioral and electrical stimulation studies. Cogent Psychology, 11(1), 2316415.
Narmashiri, A., Hatami, J., Khosrowabadi, R., & Sohrabi, A. (2023). Paranormal believers show reduced resting EEG beta band oscillations and inhibitory control than skeptics. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 3258. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30457-7
Narmashiri A, Hatami J, Khosrowabadi R, Sohrabi A. The Role of Cognitive Control in Paranormal Beliefs: A Study Based on Performance in Go/No-go Task. Basic Clin Neurosci. 2023;14(3):411-417. doi:10.32598/bcn.2021.923.3
Narmashiri, A., Akbari, F., Sohrabi, A., & Hatami, J. (2023). Conspiracy beliefs are associated with a reduction in frontal beta power and biases in categorizing ambiguous stimuli. Heliyon, 9(10), e20249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20249
Narmashiri, A., Hatami, J., Khosrowabadi, R., & Sohrabi, A. (2022). Resting-State Electroencephalogram (EEG) Coherence Over Frontal Regions in Paranormal Beliefs. BCN, 13(4), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.32598/bcn.2021.923.2
Park, D. C., Polk, T. A., Hebrank, A. C., & Jenkins, L. (2010). Age differences in default mode activity on easy and difficult spatial judgment tasks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 1020.
Richler, J. J., Cheung, O. S., & Gauthier, I. (2011). Holistic processing predicts face recognition. Psychological science, 22(4), 464-471.
Riekki, T., Lindeman, M., Aleneff, M., Halme, A., & Nuortimo, A. (2013). Paranormal and religious believers are more prone to illusory face perception than skeptics and non‐believers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 150-155.
Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological review, 103(3), 403.
Searcy, J. H., & Bartlett, J. C. (1996). Inversion and processing of component and spatial–relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 22(4), 904.
Slessor, G., Riby, D. M., & Finnerty, A. N. (2013). Age-related differences in processing face configuration: The importance of the eye region. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(2), 228-231.
Van Elk, M. (2013). Paranormal believers are more prone to illusory agency detection than skeptics. Consciousness and cognition, 22(3), 1041-1046.
Van Elk, M., Rutjens, B. T., van der Pligt, J., & Van Harreveld, F. (2016). Priming of supernatural agent concepts and agency detection. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 6(1), 4-33.
Volume 1, Issue 1
March 2025
Pages 13-20
  • Receive Date: 17 November 2024
  • Revise Date: 06 March 2025
  • Accept Date: 02 February 2025
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2025
  • Publish Date: 01 March 2025