Relational frameworks for recall in young and older adults

Abstract

Recent research indicates the presence of an age-related visual processing deficit, for which the elderly may attempt to compensate through the use of relational information. This hypothesis was tested, using the category superiority effect as a model system. In studies of young adults, the category superiority effect has been shown to be confined to relatively abstract stimulus materials, such as verbal items, and to be absent for pictures. However, it was predicted that a category superiority effect would be present in elderly adults both for verbal and for pictorial stimuli, since the elderly would be expected to utilize category information to compensate for imageric deficits. This prediction was confirmed, consistent with the hypothesis advanced above. It was further suggested that the establishment of a prior framework for recall, based on relational information, would reduce this effect significantly. This prediction was also confirmed.Recent research indicates the presence of an age-related diminution in the ability to process pictorial information (Sharps and Gollin, 1987a;Sharps, 1990Sharps, , 1997aDror and Kosslyn, 1994; but see also Hertzog et al., 1993). The active processing of imageric information requires the respondent to deal with numerous item-specific details, and would therefore be expected to diminish with age, since such activity involves significant mental effort and considerable reliance on self-initiated processing (Craik, 1986;Craik and Jennings, 1992). Thus it would be expected that task situations which place greater demands on imageric processing (Paivio, 1990) would be subject to the greatest age-related change. In view of these considerations, and especially in view of the demonstration of pictorial processing loss advanced by Dror and Kosslyn (1994), it seems very likely that the elderly do in fact experience relative difficulty with pictorial processing.In contrast to pictorial processing, relational processing, such as that dealing with the category structure of stimulus sets, tends to remain relatively intact through the aging process (Nebes, 1990). Within any given memory task, the elderly are probably better at using relational than pictorial information. Therefore, we would expect the use of relational information to be more reinforcing for the elderly than the use of imagery in memory.It should be noted that under specific task conditions, as will be discussed below, the elderly are capable of using pictorial, item-specific support for recall at a very high level, in spite of the suggested age-related declines in picture-processing abilities

Bartlett Revisited: Reconfiguration of Long-Term Memory in Young and Older Adults

“…Researchers (Sharps, 1997(Sharps, , 1998Sharps & Antonelli, 1997;Sharps, Martin, Nunes, & Merrill, 1999) have shown that older adults can use relational, meaningful information to compensate for age-related losses in several areas of recall (see Nebes, 1990). Yet, to be effective, these compensatory behaviors require a relatively straightforward, familiar category structure within which elements of material to be recalled are assigned.…”

Mindless Decision Making and Environmental Issues: Gestalt/Feature-Intensive Processing and Contextual Reasoning in Environmental Decisions

“…Additional researchers have found that contextual information can be used by respondents across the adult lifespan to improve cognitive performance in a variety of areas, including spatial memory (Sharps, 1991;Sharps, Foster, Martin, & Nunes, 1999;Sharps & Gollin, 1987a, 1988Sharps & Martin, 1998), mental rotation (Sharps, 1990;Sharps & Gollin, 1987b;Sharps & Nunes, 2002), and nonspatial memory Sharps, 1997;Sharps & Antonelli, 1997;Sharps, Martin, Nunes, & Merrill, 1999;Sharps, Martin, Nunes, Nef, & Woo, 2004;Sharps & Tindall, 1992;Sharps, Wilson-Leff, Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 06:00 10 June 2016 & Price, 1995) in both visual and auditory realms (e.g., Sharps, 1998;Sharps & Pollitt, 1998;Sharps, Price, & Bence, 1996).…”

Ascending blocks enhance two-digit number recall

“…For example, it has been demonstrated in many experiments studying free and cued recall of word presentations (Cofer et al, 1966;D'Agostino, 1969;Dallet, 1964;Gollin & Sharps, 1988;Lewis, 1971;Luek et al, 1971;Matthews & Hoggart, 1970;Puff, 1973;Sharps, 1997;Sharps et al, 2004;Sharps et al, 1999;Sharps & Pollitt, 1998;Sharps & Tindall, 1992;Sharps et al, 1995;Stones, 1973;Toglia et al, 1997). Also, Sharps and Pollitt (1998) demonstrated the effect with auditory stimuli (e.g., sounds from musical instruments, animals, or tools).…”

“…One specific type of organization that has been found to improve memory performance in many experiments is the blocking of items within lists by category (Cofer, Bruce, & Reicher, 1966;D'Agostino, 1969;Dallet, 1964;Engelkamp & Zimmer, 2002;Gollin & Sharps, 1988;Lewis, 1971;Luek, Mclaughlin, & Cicala, 1971;Matthews & Hoggart, 1970;Puff, 1973;Sharps, 1997;Sharps, Day, Nunes, Neff, & Woo, 2004;Sharps, Martin, Nunes, & Merrill, 1999;Sharps & Pollitt, 1998;Sharps & Tindall, 1992;Sharps, Wilson-Leff, & Price, 1995;Stones, 1973;Toglia, Hinman, Dayton, & Catalano, 1997). In blocked presentations, items from the same category are presented contiguously and there are distinct boundaries between categories (Puff, 1974).…”

“…Items from categorically blocked presentations, in which items from the same category are presented contiguously, are better recalled than items from presentations in which items from the same category are separated (i.e., random or unblocked presentations). This pattern of data is variously referred to as either the blocked-random effect (D'Agostino, 1969;Stones, 1973;Toglia et al, 1997) or the category superiority effect (Sharps, 1997;Sharps et al, 1999;Sharps & Pollitt, 1998;Sharps et al, 1995). Experiments investigating this effect have demonstrated higher categorical clustering in free recall following blocked presentations than in free recall following random presentations (Cofer, et al, 1966;Dallet, 1964;Engelkamp & Zimmer, 2002;Gollin & Sharps, 1988;Puff, 1973;Sharps et al, 2004;Sharps et al, 1999;Sharps & Tindall, 1992;Toglia et al, 1997).…”