Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
R222b Aging, Spaced Retrieval 1 Running Head: Aging, Spaced Retrieval, and Inflexible Memory Aging, Spaced Retrieval, and Inflexible Memory Performance
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Bishara, Anthony J. Jacoby, Larry L. |
| Copyright Year | 2010 |
| Abstract | Spaced retrieval is a memory-training technique whereby information is tested at progressively longer delays. Two experiments were conducted to examine effects of spaced retrieval on controlled recollection and automatic influences of memory. In Experiment 1, word-pairs were read once, read three times, or read once and retrieved twice by young and older adults. Retrieval practice improved performance on a later test for both age groups. Experiment 2 was arranged such that recollection opposed automatic influences of retrieval practice. Retrieval practice increased intrusions on a later test only for older adults. Results suggest that, because of a deficit in recollection, older adults were less able to oppose the automatic influence of spaced retrieval, and so exhibited less flexible memory performance. R222B Aging, Spaced Retrieval 3 Aging, spaced retrieval, and inflexible memory performance A great deal of research has shown that testing improves memory, sometimes even more than additional studying does (e.g., Carrier & Pashler, 1992; Jacoby & Bartz, 1972; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Repeated testing with progressively increasing delays between tests, termed expanded or spaced retrieval, can greatly enhance memory performance (Landauer & Bjork, 1978). Spaced retrieval has been used to enhance memory performance in various populations, ranging from Alzheimer’s patients (Camp, Foss, O’Hanlon, & Stevens, 1996; Schacter, Rich, & Stampp, 1985) to healthy older adults (Logan & Balota, in press). Despite these successful applications, spaced retrieval may come with the cost of leading to inflexible behavior in populations with deficits in controlled memory functioning, including aging populations. To illustrate this problem, consider a study in which spaced retrieval was used to train participants with Alzheimer’s disease to open a box each time an alarm sounded (Bird & Kinsella, 1996). Participants did learn to open the box. However, the learning was inflexible and not restricted to the alarm being sounded. For example, one participant inappropriately shouted “open the box” the next time she saw the experimenter. Anecdotes aside, there is currently no published empirical work examining whether spaced retrieval leads to inflexible performance. One published study has examined spaced retrieval in terms of a related issue, a comparison of explicit and implicit memory (Cherry, Simmons, & Camp, 1999). Unfortunately, spaced retrieval’s effects on explicit and implicit memory were ambiguous because the small sample size prevented statistical hypothesis testing. Closely related to spaced retrieval is the technique of vanishing cues, whereby memory tests are made more difficult by progressively removing cues rather than progressively increasing test R222B Aging, Spaced Retrieval 4 delays (Glisky, Schacter, & Tulving, 1986). Learning from vanishing cues has been shown to sometimes lead to inflexible behavior (Kapur, Glisky, & Wilson, 2004). The current article examines inflexible behavior by comparing spaced retrieval to spaced studying. Experiment 1 shows that, compared to spaced studying, spaced retrieval can improve memory performance for both young and older adults. Results from Experiment 2 suggest that spaced retrieval enhanced both controlled recollection and more automatic influences of memory for young adults. However, recollection is more susceptible to the effects of aging (e.g., Jennings & Jacoby, 1993, 1997) and so for older adults, spaced-retrieval practice might primarily increase automatic influences, thereby leading to inflexible behavior. Experiment 1 Memory performance in a Retrieved condition was compared with that produced by studying word pairs simply by reading them once or three times (Read 1x and Read 3x conditions). For the Retrieved condition, we followed Carrier and Pashler (1992) by providing additional exposure to responses when retrieval attempts failed. Doing so is important because otherwise failures to retrieve items on initial tests might hide advantages of retrieval over repeated reading. The Retrieved condition involved three trials. On the first trial, associatively related pairs of words (e.g., knee-bone) were presented for study. On the second and third trials, the cue word of the pair was accompanied by a fragment of the response (knee-b_n_), and participants were instructed to respond with the whole word pair. For the final second of the two trials for which retrieval was attempted, the cue was presented with its intact response (kneebone) regardless of whether or not retrieval was successful. An expanded retrieval schedule was used such that there was more intervening time between the 2 nd and 3 rd trials than between the 1 st and 2 nd trials. This expanding schedule was R222B Aging, Spaced Retrieval 5 also used for the Read 3x condition so that it would be comparable. In a later test phase, memory was measured for all three conditions by presenting the cue word along with a fragment of its response (e.g., knee-b_n_). We expected memory performance to be better in the Retrieved condition than the Read 3x condition, which in turn was expected to be better than the Read 1x condition. Method Participants Table 1 shows demographics of participants. The young adult group consisted of Washington University undergraduates who participated in exchange for course credit or $10. The older adult group was recruited from the Washington University Psychology Department older adult participant pool. Older adults were volunteers from the St. Louis community and participated in exchange for $10. Design and Materials The two age groups were crossed with three within-subject conditions: Read 1x, Read 3x, and Retrieved. A pool of 94 word triplets was selected from norms reported by Jacoby (1996). Each triplet included one cue word (e.g. knee) and two associatively related responses (bone, bend) that would complete a word fragment (b_n_). Of these triplets, 84 were used as critical items and divided into sets of 28 for the 3 conditions. Assignment of sets to conditions was counterbalanced across participants. The remaining 10 triplets were used as fillers. To reduce serial position effects, 2 fillers were presented at the beginning and 2 at the end of the study list. Six filler items were distributed throughout the list in order to obtain the desired repetition schedules. R222B Aging, Spaced Retrieval 6 A distracter list consisted of 84 new, once-presented word pairs (e.g. zoo-cage) that were chosen from association norms (Jacoby, 1996; Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 1998). The distracter list intervened between presentation of the study list and its test, and it was meant to reduce recall so as to avoid ceiling effects. The test list consisted of 84 critical cue words presented with a word fragment (e.g. kneeb_n_). The fragments were the same as those presented in the Retrieved condition. Order of test presentation was random with the restriction that no more than two items from the same condition could be presented in succession. Procedure For the study phase, participants were instructed to read aloud and study word-pairs for a later memory test. They were told that some pairs would be repeated with letters missing from the second word (Retrieved condition). For these pairs, they were to recall the studied word that completed the fragment and say the whole pair out loud as soon as possible. In the Retrieved condition, the complete word pair appeared for 4 seconds for the first presentation. On the second and third presentations, the cue word and word fragment (e.g. knee-b_n_) appeared for a maximum of three seconds. As soon as the participant responded or after 3 seconds had elapsed, the word fragment was replaced by the intact pair. The intact pair remained on the screen for 1 second. Participants read the intact pair aloud if they had failed to respond in the previous 3 seconds. Read 1x and Read 3x word pairs appeared in complete form for 4 seconds on each presentation. For Read 3x and Retrieved items, the first presentation was separated from the second by 1-2 intervening pairs, and the second presentation was separated from the third by 5-6 intervening pairs. R222B Aging, Spaced Retrieval 7 For the distracter phase, participants were instructed to read aloud and to remember the word pairs for later. Pairs were presented for 2 seconds each. In actuality, there was no test for these items. For the final test phase, participants were tested for their memory of the original study list. Each test trial consisted of a cue word and word fragment (knee-b_n_) appearing on the screen until the participant responded or for a maximum of 10 seconds. Participants were instructed to recall the response and say the whole word pair within that time. They were instructed to give a response even if they had to guess. A blank screen appeared between each trial for 500 ms. After the memory test, participants took a computer version of the Shipley Vocabulary Subtest. Results and Discussion While lags were chosen to minimize errors during the study phase, errors still occurred occasionally. The probability of producing at least 1 error out of 2 opportunities to do so during retrieval practice of an item was lower for young adults (M = .10, SD = .07) than older adults (M = .23, SD = .13), t(34) = 3.84, p < .001. These errors may strengthen incorrect responses, and so the main analysis of the final memory test is conditionalized on errorless retrieval during the study phase. For both experiments, unconditionalized data are reported in parentheses in tables. Statistical analysis of unconditionalized data is only reported when it changes significance status, and in most cases it did not. Table 2 shows the probability of correct responding on the final test across Item Type and Age. Performance was better for young adults (M = .83) than older adults (M = .69). When a 2 (Age:Young & Older) X 3 (Item Type: Read 1x, Read 3x, |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://bisharaa.people.cofc.edu/preprints/BisharaJacoby2008.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
