Age-related decline in motion contrast sensitivity due to lower absorption rate of cones and calculation efficiency.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 10 2020
05 10 2020
Historique:
received:
26
09
2019
accepted:
14
09
2020
entrez:
6
10
2020
pubmed:
7
10
2020
medline:
23
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Motion perception is affected by healthy aging, which impairs the ability of older adults to perform some daily activities such as driving. The current study investigated the underlying causes of age-related motion contrast sensitivity losses by using an equivalent noise paradigm to decompose motion contrast sensitivity into calculation efficiency, the temporal modulation transfer function (i.e., temporal blur) and 3 sources of internal noise: stochastic absorption of photons by photoreceptors (i.e., photon noise), neural noise occurring at the retinal level (i.e., early noise) and at the cortical level (i.e., late noise). These sources of internal noise can be disentangled because there impacts on motion contrast sensitivity vary differently as a function of luminance intensity. The impact of healthy aging on these factors was evaluated by measuring motion contrast sensitivity of young and older healthy adults at different luminance intensities, temporal frequencies and with/without external noise. The older adults were found to have higher photon noise, which suggests a lower photon absorption rate of cones. When roughly equating the amount of photons being absorbed by the photoreceptors, older adults had lower calculation efficiencies, but no significant aging effect was found on temporal modulation transfer function, early noise and late noise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33020552
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73322-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-73322-7
pmc: PMC7536415
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16521Références
Habak, C. & Faubert, J. Larger effect of aging on the perception of higher-order stimuli. Vis. Res. 40, 943–950 (2000).
doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00235-7
Allard, R., Lagacé-Nadon, S. & Faubert, J. Feature tracking and aging. Front. Psychol. 4, 1–8 (2013).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00427
Owsley, C. Aging and vision. Vis. Res. 51, 1610–1622 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.020
Billino, J. & Pilz, K. S. Motion perception as a model for perceptual aging. J. Vis. 19, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.3 (2019).
doi: 10.1167/19.4.3
Sepulveda, J. A., Anderson, A. J., Wood, J. M. & Mckendrick, A. M. Differential aging effects in motion perception tasks for central and peripheral vision. J. Vis. 20, 1–13 (2020).
doi: 10.1167/jov.20.5.8
Scialfa, C. T., Guzy, L. T., Leibowitz, H. W., Garvey, P. M. & Tyrrell, R. A. Age differences in estimating vehicle velocity. Psychol. Aging 6, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.6.1.60 (1991).
doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.6.1.60
pubmed: 2029369
DeLucia, P. R. & Mather, R. D. Motion extrapolation of car-following scenes in younger and older drivers. Hum. Factors 48, 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006779166352 (2006).
doi: 10.1518/001872006779166352
pubmed: 17240715
Andersen, G. J., Cisneros, J., Saidpour, A. & Atchley, P. Age-related differences in collision detection during deceleration. Psychol. Aging 15, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.241 (2000).
doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.241
pubmed: 10879579
Conlon, E. & Herkes, K. Spatial and temporal processing in healthy aging: implications for perceptions of driving skills. Aging Neuropsychol. Cognit. 15, 446–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580701878008 (2008).
doi: 10.1080/13825580701878008
Wood, J. M. Aging, driving and vision. Clin. Exp. Optom. 85, 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2002.tb03040.x (2002).
doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2002.tb03040.x
pubmed: 12135413
Wilkins, L., Gray, R., Gaska, J. & Winterbottom, M. Motion perception and driving: predicting performance through testing and shortening braking reaction times through training. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54, 8364–8374. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-12774 (2013).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12774
Arena, A., Hutchinson, C. V., Shimozaki, S. S. & Long, M. D. Visual discrimination in noise: behavioural correlates of age-related cortical decline. Behav. Brain Res. 243, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.12.039 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.12.039
pubmed: 23295399
Spear, P. D. Neural bases of visual deficits during aging. Vis. Res. 33, 2589–2609. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(93)90218-L (1993).
doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90218-L
pubmed: 8296455
Peters, A., Moss, M. B. & Sethares, C. The effects of aging on layer 1 of primary visual cortex in the rhesus monkey. Cereb. Cortex 11, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.3 0 (2001).
doi: 10.1093/cercor/11.2.93
pubmed: 11208664
Peters, A., Sethares, C. & Killiany, R. J. Effects of age on the thickness of myelin sheaths in monkey primary visual cortex. J. Comp. Neurol. 435, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.1205 (2001).
doi: 10.1002/cne.1205
pubmed: 11391644
Yu, S., Wang, Y., Li, X., Zhou, Y. & Leventhal, A. G. Functional degradation of extrastriate visual cortex in senescent rhesus monkeys. Neuroscience 140, 1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.3 2 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.01.015
pubmed: 16678974
Betts, L. R., Taylor, C. P., Sekuler, A. B. & Bennett, P. J. Aging reduces center-surround antagonism in visual motion processing. Neuron 45, 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.3 3 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.12.041
pubmed: 15694323
Schmolesky, M. T., Wang, Y., Pu, M. & Leventhal, A. G. Degradation of stimulus selectivity of visual cortical cells in senescent rhesus monkeys. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 384–390 (2000).
doi: 10.1038/73957
Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Ma, Y. & Leventhal, A. G. Degradation of signal timing in cortical areas V1 and V2 of senescent monkeys. Cereb. Cortex 15, 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.3 4 (2005).
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhh143
pubmed: 15749984
Pelli, D. G. Effects of visual noise. Thesis, Cambridge university (1981).
Pelli, D. G. & Farell, B. Why use noise?. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 16, 647–653 (1999).
doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.16.000647
Pardhan, S. Contrast sensitivity loss with aging: sampling efficiency and equivalent noise at different spatial frequencies. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 21, 169–175 (2004).
doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.21.000169
Bennett, P. J., Sekuler, A. B. & Ozin, L. Effects of aging on calculation efficiency and equivalent noise. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 16, 654–668 (1999).
doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.16.000654
Silvestre, D., Arleo, A. & Allard, R. Internal noise sources limiting contrast sensitivity. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–11 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20619-3
Allard, R., Silvestre, D., Braham chaouche, A. & Arleo, A. Psychophysically measuring the impact of internal noise sources limiting motion contrast sensitivity. (in preparation).
Giersch, A., Speeg-Schatz, C., Tondre, M. & Gottenkiene, S. Impairment of contrast sensitivity in long-term lorazepam users. Psychopharmacology 186, 594–600 (2006).
doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0378-3
Allard, R. & Faubert, J. The noisy-bit method for digital displays: converting a 256 luminance resolution into a continuous resolution. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 735–743 (2008).
doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.735
Allard, R. & Faubert, J. Motion processing: the most sensitive detectors differ in temporally localized and extended noise. Front. Psychol. 5, 1–5 (2014).
Watson, A. B. & Robson, J. G. Discrimination at threshold: labelled detectors in human vision. Vis. Res. 21, 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(81)90014-6 (1981).
doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(81)90014-6
pubmed: 7314490
Jules Étienne, C., Arleo, A. & Allard, R. Maximizing noise energy for noise-masking studies. Behav. Res. Methods 49, 1278–1290 (2016).
doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0786-1
Allard, R. & Cavanagh, P. Crowding in a detection task: external noise triggers change in processing strategy. Vis. Res. 51, 408–416 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.008
Allard, R. & Faubert, J. To characterize contrast detection, noise should be extended, not localized. Front. Psychol. 5, 1–7 (2014).
Silvestre, D., Cavanagh, P., Arleo, A. & Allard, R. Adding temporally localized noise can enhance the contribution of target knowledge on contrast detection. J. Vis. 17, 1–10 (2017).
Lu, Z.-L. & Dosher, B. A. Characterizing observers using external noise and observer models: assessing internal representations with external noise. Psychol. Rev. 115, 44–82. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.4.3 6 (2008).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.44
pubmed: 18211184
Allard, R., Renaud, J., Molinatti, S. & Faubert, J. Contrast sensitivity, healthy aging and noise. Vis. Res. 92, 47–52 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2013.09.004
Baldwin, A. S., Baker, D. H. & Hess, R. F. What do contrast threshold equivalent noise studies actually measure ? Noise vs. nonlinearity in different masking paradigms. PLoS ONE 11, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150942 (2016).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150942
Baker, D. H. & Meese, T. S. Zero-dimensional noise: the best mask you never saw. J. Vis. 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1167/12.10.20 (2012).
doi: 10.1167/12.10.20
Pelli, D. G. The quantum efficiency of vision. Vis. Coding Effic. 3–24 (1990).
Allard, R. & Arleo, A. Factorizing the motion sensitivity function into equivalent input noise and calculation efficiency. J. Vis. 17, 1–12 (2017).
Allard, R. & Arleo, A. Reducing luminance intensity can improve motion perception in noise. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–5 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x
Levitt, H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J, Acoust. Soc. Am. 49(Suppl 2), 467 (1971).
doi: 10.1121/1.1912375
Mellerio, J. Yellowing of the human lens: nuclear and cortical contributions. Vis. Res. 27, 1581–1587 (1987).
doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(87)90166-0
Kelly, D. H. & Wilson, H. R. Human flicker sensitivity: two stages of retinal diffusion. Science 202, 896–899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.715449 (1978).
doi: 10.1126/science.715449
pubmed: 715449
Watson, A. B. Temporal Sensitivity (Wiley, New-York, 1986).
Robson, J. G. Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity functions of the visual system. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 1141–1142. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.56.001141 (1966).
doi: 10.1364/JOSA.56.001141
Silvestre, D., Arleo, A. & Allard, R. Healthy aging impairs photon absorption efficiency of cones. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 60, 544–551 (2019).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.18-25598
Gartner, S. & Henkind, P. Aging and degeneration of the human macula. 1. Outer nuclear layer and photoreceptors. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 65, 23–8 (1981).
doi: 10.1136/bjo.65.1.23
Curcio, C. A., Millican, C. L., Allen, K. A. & Kalina, R. E. Aging of the human photoreceptor mosaic: evidence for selective vulnerability of rods in central retina. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 34, 3278–3296 (1993).
Gao, H. & Hollyfield, J. G. Aging of the human retina. Differential loss of neurons and retinal pigment epithelial cells. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 33, 1–17 (1992).
Panda-Jonas, S., Jonas, J. B. & Jakobczyk-Zmija, M. Retinal photoreceptor density decreases with age. Ophthalmology 102, 1853–1859 (1995).
doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(95)30784-1
Cunea, A. & Jeffery, G. The ageing photoreceptor. Vis. Neurosci. 24, 151–155 (2007).
doi: 10.1017/S0952523807070204
Angueyra, J. M. & Rieke, F. Origin and effect of phototransduction noise in primate cone photoreceptors. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1692–1700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.6.1.60 0 (2013).
doi: 10.1038/nn.3534
pubmed: 24097042
pmcid: 3815624
Leventhal, A. G., Wang, Y., Pu, M., Zhou, Y. & Ma, Y. GABA and its agonists improved senescent monkeys. Science 300, 812–815. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082874 (2003).
doi: 10.1126/science.1082874
pubmed: 12730605
Tadin, D. & Blake, R. Motion perception getting better with age?. Neuron 45, 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.6.1.60 2 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.017
pubmed: 15694315
Falsini, B. et al. Temporal response properties of the macular cone system: effect of normal aging and age-related maculopathy. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 48, 4811–4817. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0306 (2007).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-0306
Billino, J., Bremmer, F. & Gegenfurtner, K. R. Differential aging of motion processing mechanisms: evidence against general perceptual decline. Vis. Res. 48, 1254–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.014 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.014
pubmed: 18396307
Shaqiri, A. et al. No evidence for a common factor underlying visual abilities in healthy older people. Dev. Psychol. 55, 1775–1787. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000740 (2019).
doi: 10.1037/dev0000740
pubmed: 31192641
Andersen, G. J. Aging and vision: changes in function and performance from optics to perception. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cognit. Sci. 3, 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1167 (2012).
doi: 10.1002/wcs.1167
Gruber, N., Mosimann, U. P., Müri, R. M. & Nef, T. Vision and night driving abilities of elderly drivers. Traffic Inj. Prev. 14, 477–485 (2013).
doi: 10.1080/15389588.2012.727510