1983
DOI: 10.1093/geronj/38.2.204
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Example of Age-associated Interference in Memorizing

Abstract: The study compared young and old intellectually superior individuals (mean ages 22.8 and 68.8) on Brown-Peterson memory tasks. Each trial required recall of four words following 15 seconds of backward counting, with a final recognition test for words in a 4-trial block. Each person participated in a switch and nonswitch condition of a Wickens paradigm--unchanged category membership of quadruplets for nonswitch and trial 4 change for switch. Usual recall loss from trial 2 onwards and recovery on trial 4 after a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, the two age groups were similar in terms of numbers of erroneous repetitions (particularly in Experiment 1 where there was stronger evidence for an increase in the Ranschburg effect with age), which suggests that the age groups did not differ in their willingness to include repetitions in their responses. Second, the age difference in the Ranschburg effect in Experiment 1 was identical in the first and second blocks of 24 trials, with M delta values of -0.13 (young) and -0.21 (older) in the first block, and -0.12 (young) and -0.20 (older) in the second block: This also argues against an account of repetition inhibition in terms of proactive interference (Jahnke, 1972), to which older adults may be more susceptible (e.g., Kliegl & Lindenberger, 1993;Schonfield & Davidson, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…First, the two age groups were similar in terms of numbers of erroneous repetitions (particularly in Experiment 1 where there was stronger evidence for an increase in the Ranschburg effect with age), which suggests that the age groups did not differ in their willingness to include repetitions in their responses. Second, the age difference in the Ranschburg effect in Experiment 1 was identical in the first and second blocks of 24 trials, with M delta values of -0.13 (young) and -0.21 (older) in the first block, and -0.12 (young) and -0.20 (older) in the second block: This also argues against an account of repetition inhibition in terms of proactive interference (Jahnke, 1972), to which older adults may be more susceptible (e.g., Kliegl & Lindenberger, 1993;Schonfield & Davidson, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Healthy elderly adults are highly susceptible to this interference (63) and an anecdotal observation was that subjects often recalled information from earlier paragraphs and word lists on subsequent tests during the same day. Thus, the dietary treatments may affect proactive interference and therefore differentially influence performance at later time points.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Controls and AD individuals probably would not find a given distractor task equally difficult, making ceiling or floor effects likely for one of the groups if the same distractor task was used for each participant. Thus, we tailored the difficulty of the distractor task in the word recall task to each participant's ability by doing a pretest counting task (see also Mistler-Lachman, 1977;Schonfield et al, 1983).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%