Isabel Bauer, Milena S Gölz, Lisa Finkel, Maddalena Blasizzo, Sarah E M Stoll, Jennifer Randerath
{"title":"老年人并不总是高估他们在不同环境下的行动机会。","authors":"Isabel Bauer, Milena S Gölz, Lisa Finkel, Maddalena Blasizzo, Sarah E M Stoll, Jennifer Randerath","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-86790-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Am I still able to climb the ladder? Aging accompanies changes in physical constitution and a higher risk of injuries. At the same time, the judgment of action opportunities needs to be highly adaptive to the given task setting. We examined older adults' (n = 40) judgment tendencies in four different tasks by use of a detection theory approach. The tasks' setting differed in their boundaries' proximity to the actor with either proximal (e.g., judging one's hand fit into an opening) or distal boundaries (e.g., judging the reachability of a distant object). The older participants showed significantly more liberal judgments in tasks with distal boundaries. Body awareness and alertness were associated with the extent of judgment disparity between setting types. Subsequently, we compared a gender- and education-matched subsample of the group (n = 24) to a younger sample (n = 24). Older participants' judgment tendencies were significantly more extreme, with stronger under- or overestimations depending on the type of setting. We discuss potential links between more extreme judgments in older adults and higher reliance on learned patterns. Future research is needed to further unravel these setting-dependent behavioral differences and the factors contributing to more extreme judgment tendencies with growing age.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"4559"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11802724/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Older adults do not consistently overestimate their action opportunities across different settings.\",\"authors\":\"Isabel Bauer, Milena S Gölz, Lisa Finkel, Maddalena Blasizzo, Sarah E M Stoll, Jennifer Randerath\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-86790-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Am I still able to climb the ladder? Aging accompanies changes in physical constitution and a higher risk of injuries. At the same time, the judgment of action opportunities needs to be highly adaptive to the given task setting. We examined older adults' (n = 40) judgment tendencies in four different tasks by use of a detection theory approach. The tasks' setting differed in their boundaries' proximity to the actor with either proximal (e.g., judging one's hand fit into an opening) or distal boundaries (e.g., judging the reachability of a distant object). The older participants showed significantly more liberal judgments in tasks with distal boundaries. Body awareness and alertness were associated with the extent of judgment disparity between setting types. Subsequently, we compared a gender- and education-matched subsample of the group (n = 24) to a younger sample (n = 24). Older participants' judgment tendencies were significantly more extreme, with stronger under- or overestimations depending on the type of setting. We discuss potential links between more extreme judgments in older adults and higher reliance on learned patterns. Future research is needed to further unravel these setting-dependent behavioral differences and the factors contributing to more extreme judgment tendencies with growing age.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"4559\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11802724/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86790-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86790-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Older adults do not consistently overestimate their action opportunities across different settings.
Am I still able to climb the ladder? Aging accompanies changes in physical constitution and a higher risk of injuries. At the same time, the judgment of action opportunities needs to be highly adaptive to the given task setting. We examined older adults' (n = 40) judgment tendencies in four different tasks by use of a detection theory approach. The tasks' setting differed in their boundaries' proximity to the actor with either proximal (e.g., judging one's hand fit into an opening) or distal boundaries (e.g., judging the reachability of a distant object). The older participants showed significantly more liberal judgments in tasks with distal boundaries. Body awareness and alertness were associated with the extent of judgment disparity between setting types. Subsequently, we compared a gender- and education-matched subsample of the group (n = 24) to a younger sample (n = 24). Older participants' judgment tendencies were significantly more extreme, with stronger under- or overestimations depending on the type of setting. We discuss potential links between more extreme judgments in older adults and higher reliance on learned patterns. Future research is needed to further unravel these setting-dependent behavioral differences and the factors contributing to more extreme judgment tendencies with growing age.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.