Age-related associative memory deficits in value-based remembering: The contribution of agenda-based regulation and strategy use.

Abstract

Value-based remembering in free recall tasks may be spared from the typical age-related cognitive decline observed for episodic memory. However, it is unclear whether value-based remembering for associative information is also spared from age-related cognitive decline. The current experiments evaluated the contribution of agenda-based based regulation and strategy use during study to age differences and similarities in value-based remembering of associative information. Participants studied word pairs (Experiments 1-2) or single words (Experiment 2) slated with different point values by moving a mouse controlled cursor to different spatial locations to reveal either items for study or the point value associated with remembering each item. Some participants also provided strategy reports for each item. Younger and older adults allocated greater time to studying high than low valued information, reported using normatively effective encoding strategies to learn high-valued pairs, and avoided study of low-valued pairs. As a consequence, both age groups selectively remembered more high than low-valued items. Despite nearly identical regulatory behavior, an associative memory deficit for older adults was present for high valued pairs. Age differences in value-based remembering did not occur when the materials were word lists. Fluid intelligence also moderated the effectiveness of older adults’ strategy use for high valued pairs (Experiment 2). These results suggest that age differences in associative value-based remembering may be due to some older adults’ gleaning less benefit from using normatively effective encoding strategies rather than age differences in metacognitive self-regulation per se.

White matter integrity in brain structures supporting semantic processing is associated with value-directed remembering in older adults

“…The agenda-based regulation framework posits that time, resources, and effort are allocated based on a goal-oriented agenda that aims to maximize performance (Ariel et al, 2009;Dunlosky and Ariel, 2011;Middlebrooks et al, 2017). In accordance with this framework, both older and younger adults typically report selectively using elaborative semantic encoding strategies when learning valuable items (Ariel et al, 2015;Cohen et al, 2017). In the present dataset, 16 of 23 older adults and 14 of 19 young adults reported using strategies related to the meanings of the words to support encoding (see the supplemental material of Cohen et al, 2016, for a full description of these self-report data).…”

“…These point-values simulate presented information differing in importance. A wide literature shows that the encoding and retrieval of various stimuli is enhanced when items are paired with a high point-value or monetary value (Adcock et al, 2006;Ariel et al, 2015;Carter, 2009;Cohen et al, 2014), and that this value-related selectivity is often intact in normal healthy aging (Castel et al, 2009;Castel et al, 2002;Cohen et al, 2016;Spaniol et al, 2013;see Geddes et al, 2018, for a counterexample). Although the use of point-values in VDR research does not provide participants with tangible rewards, the above research shows that these value cues are highly effective in motivating selective learning; additionally, both point-values and monetary values similarly elicit activity in rewardrelated regions in the midbrain and ventral striatum (Cohen et al, 2014).…”

“…This preserved ability to selectively engage semantic strategies during encoding was interpreted to underlie older adults' preserved ability to preferentially encode high-value items in the VDR task. Other studies have further explored participants' ability to selectively attend to high-value items (Ariel et al, 2015;Robison and Unsworth, 2017) and use more effective learning strategies that involve associative and semantic processing (Ariel et al, 2015;Cohen et al, 2017). These learning strategies are thought to produce a deeper and more elaborative encoding of semantic information that has been shown to improve memory performance (Craik and Tulving, 1975;Richardson, 1998).…”

“…These learning strategies are thought to produce a deeper and more elaborative encoding of semantic information that has been shown to improve memory performance (Craik and Tulving, 1975;Richardson, 1998). During encoding, participants commonly report using more elaborative strategies such as mental imagery, putting items in a sentence, or thinking about the relationship between items (Cohen et al, 2016;Ariel et al, 2015). Value selectivity and task performance are enhanced when participants report actively ignoring low-value items (Ariel et al, 2015), and instructing participants to use this strategy improves performance (Robison and Unsworth, 2017).…”

Intelligence moderates the benefits of strategy instructions on memory performance: an adult-lifespan examination

“…Whereas crystallized intelligence relies on acquired declarative and procedural knowledge, fluid intelligence is based on controlling mental operations and problem-solving abilities (Carroll, 1993) and has been associated with creativity (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011). Previous studies have related either measures of fluid intelligence (Ariel, Price, & Hertzog, 2015) or measures of crystallized intelligence (Barulli et al, 2013) to efficient memory strategy use, however, their effects have never been compared directly. A first attempt in this study, by distinguishing between V and BD subtests in relation to the effect of strategy use, did not show meaningful differences in the effect of these two diverse intelligence subtests.…”