Are grotesque typefaces are differentiated, in part, by marked differences in

Are grotesque typefaces are differentiated, in part, by marked differences in interand intra-character spacing. This begs the question as to whether legibility thresholds for square grotesque type might be made similar to those for humanist type simply by increasing the inter-character spacing of stimuli. Although age effects were not the primary interest of the present study, the age effects observed in these experiments are worth further consideration. It is well known that human vision degrades considerably across the lifespan, resulting in losses of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity and other attendant degradations in the processing of visual stimuli (Devaney and Johnson 1980; Greene and Madden 1987; Owsley 2011; Paterson, McGowan, and Jordan 2013). In the context of EPZ004777 web long-form reading, these declines are associated with slower reading rates, particularly for especially small or large text (Akutsu et al. 1991). To compensate, older observers may adopt a `riskier’ reading strategy, in which more familiar words are skipped at the cost of a higher rate of saccadic regressions (Laubrock, Kliegl, and engbert 2006; Rayner et al. 2006). Glance-like lexical decision paradigms have yielded a somewhat different pattern in regard to age. Ratcliff et al. have found that older observers exhibit slower response times to lexical stimuli, but have higher response accuracy, perhaps because they adopt a more conservative response 4-Hydroxytamoxifen site strategy overall (Ratcliff et al. 2004). Ratcliff’s diffusion model suggests that the key difference in response times between age groups lies in `non-decision’ components, which are of limited applicability to the present work, as non-decision components encompass both stimulus encoding and behavioural response epochs (though the diffusion model does rule out more general `cognitive slowing’ effects). The results of Studies I and II are relevant to the encoding stage specifically, and suggest three general conclusions: (1) certain combinations of typeface, colour and style are measurably less legible than others across the lifespan; (2) legibility thresholds increase with age; and (3) older observers are more strongly affected by suboptimal designs. The third point is revealed in Figures 4 and 6, which show noticeably steeper age slopes for the leastJ. DOBReS eT AL.legible condition in each experiment. While this effect is nominal for Study I, it is statistically significant in Study II, likely due to the stronger interaction of typeface and size observed in that study. It will be important to keep these types of age-related interactions in mind when designing user interfaces, especially as the world becomes demographically `grayer’. Although response time measures were not sensitive to differences in typeface or polarity, they did reveal cognitive processing differences between correct and incorrect responses, as well as differences in processing words and pseudowords. These effects are consistent with the idea that more ambiguous or cognitively demanding stimuli take longer to process and reach an actionable `decision boundary’ (Ratcliff and McKoon 2008; Wagenmakers et al. 2008). In practice, longer response times may indicate misreadings or internal reassessments of the encoded stimulus. The increase in response times observed with age is consistent with the increase observed for stimulus duration thresholds; however, owing to the multifarious ageing effects that could affect response time (subtle motor impairment, incr.Are grotesque typefaces are differentiated, in part, by marked differences in interand intra-character spacing. This begs the question as to whether legibility thresholds for square grotesque type might be made similar to those for humanist type simply by increasing the inter-character spacing of stimuli. Although age effects were not the primary interest of the present study, the age effects observed in these experiments are worth further consideration. It is well known that human vision degrades considerably across the lifespan, resulting in losses of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity and other attendant degradations in the processing of visual stimuli (Devaney and Johnson 1980; Greene and Madden 1987; Owsley 2011; Paterson, McGowan, and Jordan 2013). In the context of long-form reading, these declines are associated with slower reading rates, particularly for especially small or large text (Akutsu et al. 1991). To compensate, older observers may adopt a `riskier’ reading strategy, in which more familiar words are skipped at the cost of a higher rate of saccadic regressions (Laubrock, Kliegl, and engbert 2006; Rayner et al. 2006). Glance-like lexical decision paradigms have yielded a somewhat different pattern in regard to age. Ratcliff et al. have found that older observers exhibit slower response times to lexical stimuli, but have higher response accuracy, perhaps because they adopt a more conservative response strategy overall (Ratcliff et al. 2004). Ratcliff’s diffusion model suggests that the key difference in response times between age groups lies in `non-decision’ components, which are of limited applicability to the present work, as non-decision components encompass both stimulus encoding and behavioural response epochs (though the diffusion model does rule out more general `cognitive slowing’ effects). The results of Studies I and II are relevant to the encoding stage specifically, and suggest three general conclusions: (1) certain combinations of typeface, colour and style are measurably less legible than others across the lifespan; (2) legibility thresholds increase with age; and (3) older observers are more strongly affected by suboptimal designs. The third point is revealed in Figures 4 and 6, which show noticeably steeper age slopes for the leastJ. DOBReS eT AL.legible condition in each experiment. While this effect is nominal for Study I, it is statistically significant in Study II, likely due to the stronger interaction of typeface and size observed in that study. It will be important to keep these types of age-related interactions in mind when designing user interfaces, especially as the world becomes demographically `grayer’. Although response time measures were not sensitive to differences in typeface or polarity, they did reveal cognitive processing differences between correct and incorrect responses, as well as differences in processing words and pseudowords. These effects are consistent with the idea that more ambiguous or cognitively demanding stimuli take longer to process and reach an actionable `decision boundary’ (Ratcliff and McKoon 2008; Wagenmakers et al. 2008). In practice, longer response times may indicate misreadings or internal reassessments of the encoded stimulus. The increase in response times observed with age is consistent with the increase observed for stimulus duration thresholds; however, owing to the multifarious ageing effects that could affect response time (subtle motor impairment, incr.