Age-related differences in the impact of spacing, lag, and retention interval.

An experiment is reported that examines age-related differences in the lag effect and its relation to retention interval. A total of 30 young and 30 older adults received both once-presented pairs and twice-presented pairs that were tested in a continuous cued-recall paradigm either after a short retention interval (2 pairs intervening between the last presentation of a pair and its test) or a long retention interval (20 pairs intervening between the last presentation of a pair and its test). In addition, the twice-presented pairs were separated by either 0, 1, 4, 8, or 20 intervening pairs. The results replicated the interaction between retention interval and lag that has been reported by Glenberg (1976, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 1-16). Furthermore, although the older adults performed considerably lower than the younger adults in overall recall performance, their data were remarkably similar to the younger adults in the patterning of means. A mathematical modeling procedure was used to fit the data to Estes' stimulus fluctuation model. The results of this modeling procedure suggest that, compared with younger adults, older adults (a) encode less contextual information at a given point in time and (b) have a slower rate of contextual fluctuation across time.

[1]  L. Light,et al.  Memory and aging: the role of retrieval processes. , 1981, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  D. Balota,et al.  Age-related differences in lexical access, spreading activation, and simple pronunciation. , 1988, Psychology and aging.

[3]  Sandra E. Trehub,et al.  Aging and cognitive processes , 1982 .

[4]  R. Sperber.  Developmental changes in effects of spacing of trials in retardate discrimination learning and memory. , 1974 .

[5]  Koch Sigmund Ed,et al.  Psychology: A Study of A Science , 1962 .

[6]  L. Poon,et al.  New directions in memory and aging : proceedings of the George A. Talland Memorial Conference , 1980 .

[7]  M. Perlmutter.  Age differences in adults' free recall, cued recall, and recognition. , 1979, Journal of gerontology.

[8]  J. Botwinick.  Aging and Behavior , 1984, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[9]  C. Gryfe.  Mechanical Concepts in Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Physiology. , 1978 .

[10]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[11]  Hulicka Im,et al.  Age-group comparisons for the use of mediators in paired-associate learning. , 1967 .

[12]  R. G. Crowder.  Principles of learning and memory , 1977 .

[13]  Fergus I. M. Craik,et al.  A processing resource account of age differences in recall. , 1982 .

[14]  L. R. Peterson,et al.  Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  A. Glenberg.  Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired-associate and recognition memory paradigms , 1976 .

[16]  Word associations in old age: Evidence for consistency in semantic encoding during adulthood. , 1986 .

[17]  Michael W. Eysenck,et al.  Age differences in incidental learning. , 1974 .

[18]  W. Estes.  Statistical theory of spontaneous recovery and regression. , 1955, Psychological review.

[19]  J. C. Rabinowitz,et al.  General Encoding of Episodic Events by Elderly Adults , 1982 .

[20]  Depth and elaboration of processing in relation to age. , 1979 .

[21]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. , 1974 .

[22]  J. Duchek.  Encoding and retrieval differences between young and old: The impact of attentional capacity usage. , 1984 .