Bias effects in word fragment completion in young and older adults

Abstract

Young and older adults were tested on a word fragment completion task in which correct solutions were studied words, words orthographically similar to studied words, or new words. In Experiments 1 and 2, the standard production version of the word fragment completion task was used; older adults had reduced benefits of prior exposure to target words and slightly decreased costs. However, costs and benefits did not differ across age in a forced-choice version of the task (Experiment 3). At a behavioral level, the results are contrary to predictions that age differences in word fragment completion priming effects will be greater when there is a strong competitor for the correct solution and that age differences in both costs and benefits will be smaller for identification than for production tasks. Theoretical implications of these findings are considered.

Structural Priming Is Supported By Different Components Of Non-Declarative Memory: Evidence From Priming Across The Lifespan

“…Our results contribute substantially to the broader question of age-related changes in factor was that previous studies would directly compare younger participant groups to older groups, with the average age of the older participants varying from early 60's (Howard, Heisey, & Shaw, 1986;Neger, Rietveld, & Janse, 2014;Schugens, Daum, Spindler, & Birbaumer, 2007) to late 80s (Davidson, Zacks, & Ferreira, 2003;Davis et al, 1990;Karlsson, Adolfsson, Börjesson, & Nilsson, 2003;Light, Kennison, & Healy, 2002;Light, La Voie, Valencia-Laver, Albertson Owens, & Mead, 1992). In our study, we therefore opted for a longitudinal design, and tested participants between 20 -85 years.…”

“…However, a review of behavioural studies looking at the aging effect of conceptual and/or perceptual studies draws equivocal conclusions. This is mainly due to different experimental designs: Most aging studies take a younger age group (on average 25 years) and compares it directly to an older age group, which can vary from early 60's (Howard, Heisey, & Shaw, 1986;Neger, Rietveld, & Janse, 2014;Schugens, Daum, Spindler, & Birbaumer, 2007) to late 80's (Davidson, Zacks, & Ferreira, 2003;Davis et al, 1990;Karlsson, Adolfsson, Börjesson, & Nilsson, 2003;Light, Kennison, & Healy, 2002;Light, La Voie, Valencia-Laver, Albertson Owens, & Mead, 1992). Especially at the older age group, it is unclear at what point non-declarative memory may start to decline, which may explain why some find a significant difference with the younger age group and others do not.…”

Structural priming is supported by different components of nondeclarative memory: Evidence from priming across the lifespan.

“…However, a review of behavioral studies looking at the aging effect of conceptual and/or perceptual studies draws equivocal conclusions. This is mainly due to different experimental designs: Most aging studies take a younger age group (on average 25 years) and compares it directly with an older age group, which can vary from early 60’s (Howard, Heisey, & Shaw, 1986; Neger, Rietveld, & Janse, 2014; Schugens, Daum, Spindler, & Birbaumer, 2007) to late 80’s (Davidson, Zacks, & Ferreira, 2003; Davis et al, 1990; Karlsson, Adolfsson, Börjesson, & Nilsson, 2003; Light, Kennison, & Healy, 2002; Light, LaVoie, Valencia-Laver, Owens, & Mead, 1992). Especially at the older age group, it is unclear at what point nondeclarative memory may start to decline, which may explain why some find a significant difference with the younger age group and others do not.…”

Effects of depth-of-processing and ageing on word-stem and word-fragment implicit memory tasks: Test of the lexical-processing hypothesis

“…The results for this task are contradictory: Some studies report a significant age effect (Chiarello & Hoyer, 1988;Davis et al, 1990;Hultsch, Masson, & Small, 1991;Ryan, Ostergaard, Norton, & Johnson, 2001;Small, Hultsch, & Masson, 1995;Winocur et al, 1996, for institutionalised older subjects), whereas others do not (Clarys et al, 2000;Eustache et al, 1995;Java & Gardiner, 1991;Light & Singh, 1987;Nicolas, Ehrlich, & Facci, 1996;Park & Shaw, 1992;Winocur et al, 1996, for community-dwelling participants). However, comparisons of elderly and young subjects on implicit WFC tests reliably show no differences (Clarys et al, 2000;Jelicic, Craik, & Moscovitch, 1996;Light, Singh, & Capps, 1986;Small et al, 1995;Winocur et al, 1996; but see Light, Kennison, & Healy, 2002, for an exception). The second main purpose of this study was thus to analyse the hypothesis of a dissociative effect of age on WSC and WFC.…”