↓ Skip to main content

Age-Related Differences in Associative Learning of Landmarks and Heading Directions in a Virtual Navigation Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Age-Related Differences in Associative Learning of Landmarks and Heading Directions in a Virtual Navigation Task
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jimmy Y. Zhong, Scott D. Moffat

Abstract

Previous studies have showed that spatial memory declines with age but have not clarified the relevance of different landmark cues for specifying heading directions among different age groups. This study examined differences between younger, middle-aged and older adults in route learning and memory tasks after they navigated a virtual maze that contained: (a) critical landmarks that were located at decision points (i.e., intersections) and (b) non-critical landmarks that were located at non-decision points (i.e., the sides of the route). Participants were given a recognition memory test for critical and non-critical landmarks and also given a landmark-direction associative learning task. Compared to younger adults, older adults committed more navigation errors during route learning and were poorer at associating the correct heading directions with both critical and non-critical landmarks. Notably, older adults exhibited a landmark-direction associative memory deficit at decision points; this was the first finding to show that an associative memory deficit exist among older adults in a navigational context for landmarks that are pertinent for reaching a goal, and suggest that older adults may expend more cognitive resources on the encoding of landmark/object features than on the binding of landmark and directional information. This study is also the first to show that older adults did not have a tendency to process non-critical landmarks, which were regarded as distractors/irrelevant cues for specifying the directions to reach the goal, to an equivalent or larger extent than younger adults. We explain this finding in view of the low number of non-critical cues in our virtual maze (relative to a real-world urban environment) that might not have evoked older adults' usual tendency toward processing or encoding distractors. We explain the age differences in navigational and cognitive performance with regards to functional and structural changes in the hippocampus and parahippocampus, and recommend further investigations into the functional connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus for a better understanding of the landmark-direction associative learning among the elderly. Finally, it is hoped that the current behavioral findings will facilitate efforts to identify the neural markers of Alzheimer's disease, a disease that commonly involves navigational deficits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Unknown 135 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 26%
Student > Master 22 16%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 34%
Neuroscience 26 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 33 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,264,928
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,237
of 4,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,160
of 338,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#69
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.