In a visual search task, children recognize search-irrelevant features better than adults while relevant-feature recognition is comparable¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0–i3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Adults and children show comparable recognition accuracy for search-relevant features, but adults have lower accuracy for irrelevant features than children. → Plebanek 2017 q3 i3 The Feature Type x Age Group interaction on recognition accuracy is statistically significant. → Plebanek 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Plebanek 2017¶

Plebanek, D. J., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2017). Costs of Selective Attention: When Children Notice what Adults Miss. Psychological Science, 28(6), 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617693005

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Experiment 2 recognition phase with the same participants: after visual search for a target feature, memory was tested for relevant and irrelevant features via Old/New-R/New-I trials scored as A-prime. Relevant-feature accuracy was comparable (d = −.041, negligible); "adults had lower accuracy for irrelevant features" (d = −.70).

"while adults and children demonstrated comparable recognition accuracy for the relevant feature (.825 vs. .829), independent-sample t(56) = −.109, p > .250, d = −.041, 95% CI [−.55, .48], adults had lower accuracy for irrelevant features (.585 vs. .716), t(56) = −2.651 p = .010, d = −.70, 95% CI [−1.22, −.16]"

Plebanek 2017 (2)¶

Plebanek, D. J., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2017). Costs of Selective Attention: When Children Notice what Adults Miss. Psychological Science, 28(6), 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617693005

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

The omnibus mixed ANOVA on recognition A-primes (Figure 4) revealed the interaction: "F(1,56) = 9.197, p = .004, η2 = .141", a large printed effect. Children also showed numerically greater net accuracy (.772 vs. .705, p = .061).

"A 2 (Feature Type: Relevant vs. Irrelevant) by 2 (Age Group: Adults vs. Children) mixed ANOVA on data in Figure 4 revealed a significant interaction, F(1,56) = 9.197, p = .004, η2 = .141."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults show greater visual search accuracy than young children — related
• In a change detection task, adults outperform 4-to-5-year-olds on cued shapes while children outperform adults on uncued shapes — related
• Distraction during maintenance impairs working memory, with distractor processing inversely related to recognition accuracy — related