Age differences in rereading

Stine‐Morrow, Elizabeth A. L.; Gagne, Danielle D.; Morrow, Daniel G.; DeWall, Barbara Herman

doi:10.3758/bf03195860

Cited by 90 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these constraints must be contextualized in terms of a system that may be relatively more sensitive to socioemotional goals in learning (e.g., Adams et al, 2002), more attuned to situational features (e.g., Dijkstra, Yaxley, Madden, & Zwaan, 2004;Stine-Morrow, Morrow, & Leno, 2002;Stine-Morrow et al, 2004), and more adept at exploiting knowledge (Miller & Stine-Morrow, 1998;Miller, Cohen, & Wingfield, in press;Miller, Stine-Morrow, Kirkorian, & Conroy, 2004) and the higher-order structures of discourse (Stine-Morrow, Miller, Gagne, & Hertzog, submitted). Table 2 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Recall Performance and Encoding Efficiency …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…001, η p 2 = .73, indicated that participants became more efficient on the second trial (M 1 = 3.10, SE = .18; M 2 = 1.75, SE = .10). This is not surprising because there was presumably some savings at the second reading due to the textbase representation created on the first reading (i.e., a "rereading" benefit; see Stine-Morrow, Gagne, Morrow, & DeWall, 2004). In addition, younger adults were more efficient, requiring less encoding time per proposition (M Y = 2.09, SE = .18; M O = 2.76, SE = .20), F(1,71) = 6.20, p<.05, η p 2 = .08, though the degree to which readers' efficiency was enhanced by a second reading did not vary with age, F(1,71) = 1.06.…”

Section: Reading Timementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adult age differences in the effects of goals on self-regulated sentence processing.

Stine‐Morrow¹,

Shake²,

Miles³

et al. 2006

Psychology and Aging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined age differences in the allocation of effort when reading text for either high levels of recall accuracy or high levels of efficiency. Older and younger adults read a series of sentences, making judgments of learning before recalling the information they had studied. Older adults showed less sensitivity than the young to the accuracy goal in terms of both reading time allocation and memory performance. Memory monitoring (i.e., the correspondence between actual and perceived learning) and differential allocation of effort to unlearned items were age-equivalent, so that age differences in goal adherence were not attributable to these factors. However, comparison with data from a judgment task neutral with respect to memory monitoring showed that learning gains among the old across trial were reduced relative to young by memory monitoring, suggesting that active memory monitoring may be resource-consuming for older learners. Regression analysis was used to show that age differences in the responsiveness to (cognitive/information-acquisition) goals could be accounted for, in part, by independent contributions from working memory and memory selfefficacy. Our data suggest that both processing capacity ("what you have") and beliefs ("knowing you can do it") can contribute to individual differences in engaging resources ("what you do") to effectively learn novel content from text.Age-graded declines in fluid abilities (e.g., working memory capacity, attentional processes, processing speed) can impact the outcomes of reading, most notably memory for the information in the text that was read (Johnson, 2003;Wingfield & Stine-Morrow, 2000). Poor discourse memory among older adults is often attributed to age-graded changes in processing efficiency (e.g., Hartley, Stojack, Mushaney, Annon, & Lee, 1994;Stine & Hindman, 1994), resulting in a degradation in the strength or fidelity of the text representation garnered from time allocated to the task. The effects of this decrease in processing efficiency on recall performance may be exacerbated by a neglect in the allocation of attentional resources to overcome changes in cognitive ability (Ratner, Schell, Crimmins, Mittelman, & Baldinelli, 1987;Stine-Morrow, Miller, & Leno, 2001;Stine-Morrow, Ryan, & Leonard, 2000;Zabrucky & Moore, 1994), essentially a self-regulatory phenomenon in which reading strategies do not fully accommodate to age-graded change in capacity.This study was motivated by the desire to understand why this accommodation may not occur. We considered the viability of three (not mutually exclusive) explanations. First, it could be that older readers' reduced working memory capacity impairs the executive control of selfregulatory processing (e.g., Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999). Second, it could be that fundamental components of metacognitive control (e.g., the ability to monitor the current status of memory and allocate effort appropriately) are compromised with age (e.g., Hertzog & Dunlosky, 2004). Finally, it could be that age-related change in motiv...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reading Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Adult age differences in the effects of goals on self-regulated sentence processing.

Stine‐Morrow¹,

Shake²,

Miles³

et al. 2006

Psychology and Aging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We computed composite scores for word-level and text-level processes using the standardized z scores of each parameter across noise conditions within each age group, which are more reliable than individual parameters (e.g., Gao et al, 2011;Stine-Morrow et al, 2004). These composites were obtained by averaging z scores of the coefficients for syllable and word frequency, and for new concepts and sentence boundary, respectively.…”

Section: Patterns Of Resource Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Ageing and Visual Noise on Conceptual Integration during Sentence Reading

Gao

Levinthal

Stine‐Morrow

2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effortfulness hypothesis implies that difficulty in decoding the surface form, as in the case of age-related sensory limitations or background noise, consumes the attentional resources that are then unavailable for semantic integration in language comprehension. Because ageing is associated with sensory declines, degrading of the surface form by a noisy background can pose an extra challenge for older adults. In two experiments, this hypothesis was tested in a self-paced moving window paradigm in which younger and older readers’ online allocation of attentional resources to surface decoding and semantic integration was measured as they read sentences embedded in varying levels of visual noise. When visual noise was moderate (Experiment 1), resource allocation among young adults was unaffected but older adults allocated more resources to decode the surface form at the cost of resources that would otherwise be available for semantic processing; when visual noise was relatively intense (Experiment 2), both younger and older participants allocated more attention to the surface form and less attention to semantic processing. The decrease in attentional allocation to semantic integration resulted in reduced recall of core ideas in both experiments, suggesting that a less organized semantic representation was constructed in noise. The greater vulnerability of older adults at relatively low levels of noise is consistent with the effortfulness hypothesis.

show abstract

“…Second, it is assumed that older readers are less likely in general to spontaneously allocate resources for the construction of language representations when they require more effortful computations (Craik & Jennings, 1992), especially at the textbase level, but perhaps also for more complex aspects of the situation model (Stine, 1990;Stine-Morrow et al, 2004;Zabrucky & Moore, 1994). It is this combination of reduced computational efficiency and a failure to optimally engage resources to compensate for reduced efficiency that is the source of agerelated declines in language performance.…”

Section: Developmental Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Aging and self-regulated language processing.

Stine‐Morrow

Miller

Hertzog

2006

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

165

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces an adult developmental model of self-regulated language processing (SRLP), in which the allocation policy with which a reader engages text is driven by declines in processing capacity, growth in knowledge-based processes, and age-related shifts in reading goals. Evidence is presented to show that the individual reader's allocation policy is consistent across time and across different types of text, can serve a compensatory function in relation to abilities, and is predictive of subsequent memory performance. As such, it is an important facet of language understanding and learning from text through the adult life span.

show abstract

Age differences in rereading

Cited by 90 publications

References 72 publications

Adult age differences in the effects of goals on self-regulated sentence processing.

Adult age differences in the effects of goals on self-regulated sentence processing.

The Effects of Ageing and Visual Noise on Conceptual Integration during Sentence Reading

Aging and self-regulated language processing.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About