Where did you put keys? Behind new stimuli, study finds |

Where did you put keys? Behind new stimuli, study finds

The Los Angeles Times

If you’ve ever noticed that you notice more as you get older, well, brain science may be on your side.

There’s a catch, though: Lots of that visual information isn’t important, and it might be replacing more relevant stuff, like where you parked the car.

A study suggests that adults who are well into their 60s and 70s can learn visual information just as readily as the whippersnappers in the 19-to-30 range, but the elders pick up much more irrelevant visual information than do their younger counterparts.

The findings could help clarify the nature of cognitive declines that come with age. At least for visual perceptual learning, older brains remain “plastic,” or changeable, but they may sacrifice stability — or long-term retention of information, the study suggests.

And that’s because of a decline in the ability to suppress information that isn’t germane to the task at hand, according to the study.

“Our brain capacity is limited,” said Brown University neuroscientist Takeo Watanabe, co-author of the study published online last week in the journal Current Biology. “If you learn more unnecessary things, then there is a risk of replacing important, existing information in the brain with something trivial.”

That’s not a trivial matter. Watanabe and his fellow researchers from the University of California in Riverside and National Yang-Ming University in Taiwan have been exploring how older people learn.

A study they published this month showed that learning-related changes in one part of older people’s brains involved mainly white matter, while gray-matter activity changed among the young.

This time, dots showed the difference. Both groups — 10 youngsters and 10 seniors —viewed slides with a mix of six letters and two numerals on a background of moving dots and were asked to report what numerals they saw.

But it was perception of the dots that was being tested. Researchers tinkered with how many of those wandering dots moved in a “coherent” way from frame to frame. Some proportions were so small that they were below the threshold of conscious detection, while others were too obvious to ignore.

It turns out these too-obvious patterns were ignored — but only among the young, the study showed.

Both groups showed increased learning as the dot motions became more coherent. But the learning plummeted after a certain threshold among the young, whose brains seemed to respond with a cerebral “whatever.”

Researchers suspected that the older folks just couldn’t help processing the irrelevant dot information. So they had each group perform a common test of processing speed, divided attention and selective attention.

It turned out that the results of the dot pattern learning neatly correlated with the selective attention scores for the older folks. But there was no such correlation between those scores for the youngsters.

That suggests that the issue among seniors is a decreased ability to suppress information that is irrelevant to the task.

Watanabe and company want to take their results to the next level — comparing what parts of the brain seem to be responding in each group as they process information that is irrelevant to a task.

In the meantime, you could make the case that older drivers might have an edge over the young, at least when visual information matters. They may pick up subtle signals of potential hazards that youngsters suppress as “irrelevant.”

So, noticing a creeping shadow of a car might keep an older driver from executing a dangerous lane change.

But all bets are off if the older driver notices a squirrel.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.