A comparison of visual working memory and episodic memory performance in younger and older adults

Abstract

Working memory and episodic memory decline with age. However, as they are typically studied separately, it is largely unknown whether age-associated differences are similar. A task design was developed in which visual working memory and episodic memory performances were measured using the same stimuli, with both tasks involving context binding. A 2-back working memory task was followed by a surprise subsequent recognition memory task that assessed incidental encoding of object locations of the 2-back task. The study compared performance of younger (N=30; M=23.5, SD=2.9, range=20-29) and older adults (N=29; M=72.1, SD=6.8, range=62-90). Older adults performed worse than younger adults, without an interaction effect. In younger, but not in older adults, performance on the two tasks was related. We conclude that although age differences (Young>Older) are similar in the working memory and incidental associative memory tasks, the relationship between the two memory systems differs as a function of age group.

Incidental Learning: A Systematic Review of Its Effect on Episodic Memory Performance in Older Age

“…Comparable to Daselaar et al (2003), Sambataro et al (2012), Kalenzaga et al (2015), and Lugtmeijer et al (2019) found no age-related difference in recognition performance after incidental learning. Similarly, Aine et al (2005), Gutchess et al (2005), and Hämmerer et al (2018) found no evidence of a recognition deficit in older adults.…”

Are visual working memory and episodic memory distinct processes? Insight from stroke patients by lesion-symptom mapping.

“…Campbell and Hasher (2018) showed that the effect of hyper-binding in older adults disappears when made aware of the connection between the tasks. Finally, our previous study in which we studied the effect of age on memory with this task design, did not show an advantage for older adults on the subsequent memory task (for a more extensive discussion on the task design see Lugtmeijer et al 2019).…”

“…To assess visual working memory, an N-back task with common objects was employed (for more details on the task see Lugtmeijer et al 2019). In short, during the 2-back task, stimuli are presented in serial presentations and participants identify stimuli that are identical to a stimulus presented 2 trials before.…”

“…To date, no study directly compared working memory and long-term memory processing in patients with brain lesions. We thus employed an N-back task with easy to name stimuli to assess working memory (Lugtmeijer et al 2019). In this way we avoided the processing of complex stimuli which might engage long-term memory processing even when the retention interval is short (Jeneson and Squire 2012), without inducing a ceiling effect (Axmacher et al 2008) that might arise from a match-to-sample design with simple stimuli.…”

Positivity effects in working memory: The effects of emotional valence and task relevance

“…忆这一核心认知功能上, 尽管使用中性材料的研 究 均 发 现 工 作 记 忆 表 现 出 随 增 龄 下 降 的 特 点 (Brockmole & Logie, 2013;Lugtmeijer et al, 2019) (Peng et al, 2018;Swanson & Fung, 2016) Addis et al, 2010;Kalenzaga et al, 2016;Scheibe & Carstensen, 2010)。现有研究发现, 当工作记忆 Bermudez & Souza, 2017;Majerus & D'Argembeau, 2011;Mammarella et al, 2013), 而当任务相关刺 激为情绪面孔时积极效应则表现为老年人对消极 刺激的记忆减弱 (Mok et al, 2019;Sava et al, 2017;Svärd et al, 2014…”