Low Med High None0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 Day SceneYounger Adults Middle-Age Adults Older Adults

MethodsInhibition of Return was used as a marker of attention capture. After attention goes to a location it is inhibited from

returning later.

ResultsExperiment 1:

IOR effect scores: congruent RT – incongruent RT trials

• Negative scores at early SOA and positive scores at late SOA would suggest flash captured attention.

Replicating Sall et al. (2014), at the early SOA response times were faster when the flash and brake lamps occurred on the same side, at the late SOAs this pattern reversed.

ConclusionsWe observed a robust IOR effect on manual reaction time (Experiment 1) and oculomotor capture when the flash was less prevalent (Experiment 2).

This suggests that the flash captured attention even though it was irrelevant to the task.

No age differences in capture were observed.

Older adults appear to be using strategies to reduce RLRC flash distraction.

It is possible that older adults’ experience with the driving task allows them to utilize strategies to compensate for increased susceptibility to distraction.

RLRC flash could be a potential hazard and warrants further investigation.

ReferencesButler, K. M., Zacks, R. T., & Henderson, J. M. (1999). Suppression of reflexive saccades in younger and older adults:

Age comparisons on an antisaccade task. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 584-591.

Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Theeuwes, J. (2000). Age differences in the control of looking behavior: Do you know where your eyes have been?. Psychological Science, 11(3), 210-217.

Munoz, D. P., Broughton, J. R., Goldring, J. E., & Armstrong, I. T. (1998). Age-related performance of human subjects on saccadic eye movement tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 121(4), 391-400.

Sall, R. J., Wright, T. J., & Boot, W. R. (2014). Driven to distraction? The effect of simulated red light running camera flashes on attention and oculomotor control. Visual Cognition, 22(1), 57-73.

Sweeney, J. A., Rosano, C., Berman, R. A., & Luna, B. (2001). Inhibitory control of attention declines more than working memory during normal aging. Neurobiology of Aging, 22(1), 39-47.

Timothy J. Wright1, Thomas Vitale2, Walter R. Boot2, & Neil Charness2

1UMass Amherst 2Florida State University

Red Light Running Camera Flashes Capture Younger and Older Drivers’ Covert and Overt Attention

Experiment 2:

Replicating Sall et al. (2014), eye movements were delayed when the flash occurred.

IntroductionInitial evidence suggests that the flash accompanying Red Light Running Cameras (RLRC) can be distracting (Sall, Wright, & Boot, 2014) .

Older drivers may be especially susceptible to the distracting effects of RLRC flashes: Older adults often demonstrate poorer attentional and eye

movement control, and can experience greater distraction by salient but irrelevant information (Butler, Zacks, & Henderson, 1999; Kramer, Hahn, Irwin, & Theeuwes, 2000; Munoz, Broughton Goldring,

& Armstrong, 1998; Sweeney, Rosano, Berman, & Luna, 2001).

Advancing age is associated with increased susceptibility to glare and increased time to dark adapt once dark adaptation has been lost.

Any distracting effect of RLRC flashes would occur at locations older drivers already demonstrate differential risk (intersections).

The current study examined potential age and situational effects on RLRC flash capture: Observers responded to the a safety-critical

roadway event in the presence or absence of a RLRC flash.

Participants:

48 (16 younger, 16 middle-aged, 16 older) participants in each experiment.

Experiment 1:

Participants pressed a button as soon as brake lamps of one of the cars onset.

A RLRC flash appeared on the same side or opposite of the braking car (non-predictive, occurred on 50% of trials).

Inhibition of Return (IOR) used to measure attention capture.

Experiment 2:

Participants asked to fixate car when brake lamps onset.

RLRC flash was rare (10% of trials)

Saccade latency and direction measured capture.

Replicating Sall et al. (2014), eye movements were less accurate when the flash occurred.RLRC Flash Attention Capture Paradigm:

Significant IOR effect demonstrates that the irrelevant flash captured attention away from the

roadway, but no age differences in capture.

RLRC flashes capture the eyes, but no age differences in capture.

Non-predictive Cue

Target

Late Inhibition

Early Facilitation

Posner and Cohen (1984)

150 550

-40

-20

0

20

40

Younger AdultsNightDay

SOACon

gru

ent-

In

con

gru

ent

(m

s)

150 550

Middle-Age Adults

SOA

150 550

-40

-20

0

20

40

Older Adults

SOACon

gru

ent-

In

con

gru

ent

(ms)

Main effect of SOA, F(1,45) = 34.45, p <.001.

No interaction between SOA and age group, F(2, 45) = .28, p = .76.

Low Med High None150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360 Day SceneYounger Adults Middle-Age Adults Older Adults

Low Med High None

Night Scene

Sac

cad

ic R

eact

ion

Tim

e (S

RT

)

Flash Intensity

Main effect of flash intensity, F(3,126) = 27.88, p <.001.

Situational variables did not interact with age (all ps > .53).

Low Med High None

Night Scene

Flash Intensity

Situational variables did not interact with age (all ps > .34).

Main effect of flash intensity, F(3,135) = 60.22, p <.001.

Could older adults be using a strategy to compensate for their increased susceptibility to distraction by the RLRC flash?

Strategy Differences:

Older adults delaying their eye movements as a means to increase accuracy?

Older adults also take longer to make a corrective eye movement when they do make an erroneous eye movement towards the flash.

Younger Middle-Age Older100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

SRT for Correct 2nd EM

Sac

cad

ic R

eact

ion

Tim

e (S

RT

) Main effect of age group, F(2,43) = 4.01, p = .03

Sac

cad

ic R

eact

ion

Tim

e (S

RT

)

Older adults slower to initiate an eye movement, resulting in fewer errors compared to younger adults.  When equating for speed, older adults

captured more

DOWNLOAD

PLACEHHOLDER FOR URL

80-179 ms 180-279 ms 280-379ms 380ms-479ms

.10

.30

.50

.70

.90

Younger Adults

Flash

No Flash

Saccadic Reaction Time (SRT)

Pro

por

tion

of

Cor

rect

EM

80-179 ms 180-279 ms 280-379ms 380ms-479ms

Middle-Age Adults

Saccadic Reaction Time (SRT)

80-179 ms 180-279 ms 280-379ms 380ms-479ms

Middle-Age Adults

Saccadic Reaction Time (SRT)

80-179 ms 180-279 ms 280-379ms 380ms-479ms

.10

.30

.50

.70

.90

Older Adults

Saccadic Reaction Time (SRT)

Pro

por

tion

of

Cor

rect

EM

Three-way flash, time bin, and age group interaction, F(6,105) = 2.50, p = .03