Measurement of individual differences in face-identity processing abilities in older adults

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications

Table 1 Mean Performance (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) in Young and Older Adults Groups, as well as age-related differences, for all tasks used in this study

	YA				OA				Mean across both groups				t-Test
	M	SD	Min	Max	M	SD	Min	Max	M	SD	Min	Max	t(240)	p
CFMT	.76	.12	.47	.98	.64	.13	.32	1.0	.71	.13	.32	1.0	7.1	< .001
GFMT	.82	.10	.42	1.0	.77	.11	.50	1.0	.80	.11	.42	1.0	3.7	< .001
HP_CC	.89	.07	.56	1.0	.79	.11	.42	.97	.85	.10	.42	1.0	–	–
HP_IC	.72	.10	.40	.92	.60	.12	.30	.95	.67	.12	.32	.95	–	–
HP-res	.03	.07	− .26	.20	− .03	.11	− .37	.17	.0	.09	− .36	.20	5.1	< .001
HP-diff	.16	.11	− .03	.57	.18	.15	− .17	.57	.17	.13	− .17	.57	− 1.14	–
SA_LO	.94	.08	.06	1.0	.90	.14	.03	1.0	.93	.11	.03	1.0	–	–
SA_HI	.89	.09	.09	1.0	.76	.13	0.0	1.0	.83	.13	0.0	1.0	–	–
SA_res	− .01	− .06	− .37	.11	.03	.10	− .49	.24	.001	.08	− .49	.24	− 4.9	< .001
MR	.75	.23	.08	1.0	.61	.19	.08	1.0	.69	.22	.08	1.0	4.7	< .001
FI	.75	.11	.41	1.0	.43	.15	.05	.83	.62	.20	.05	1.0	17.9	< .001
Acuity	–	–	–	–	.95*	.36	.56	2					–	–

YA Younger Adults, OA Older adults, GFMT Glasgow Face Memory Test, CFTM Cambridge Face Matching Test, HP_CC/HP_IC Holistic Processing congruent/incongruent condition (raw data), HP-diff Holistic Processing (difference measure), HP_res Holistic processing (residuals), SA-LO/SA-HI Selective Attention low/ high opacity (raw data), SA_res Selective Attention (residuals), MR Mental Rotation, FI Fluid Intelligence. Performance is indicated as proportion of correct responses, except for HP_res and SA_res where residuals were used as difference scores (see Methods for more details). For the composite task, averages for differences score (HP-diff = CC-IC) are also provided since this index provides a more intuitive measure of the strength of holistic processing.
*Because of missing values, N = 98 for acuity (See Participants for more details)