ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
Social incentives improve deliberative but not procedural learning in older adults.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reduced dopamine receptors and transporters but not synthesis capacity in normal aging adults: a meta-analysis.Neurobiology of aging · 2017Pooled it
- Psychosocial Modulators of Motor Learning in Parkinson's Disease.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Age-related deficits are seen across tasks where learning depends on asocial feedback processing, however plasticity has been observed in some of the same tasks in social contexts suggesting a novel way to attenuate deficits. Socioemotional selectivity theory suggests this plasticity is due to a deliberative motivational shift toward achieving well-being with age (positivity effect) that reverses when executive processes are limited (negativity effect). The present study examined the interaction of feedback valence (positive, negative) and social salience (emotional face feedback - happy; angry, asocial point feedback - gain; loss) on learning in a deliberative task that challenges executive processes and a procedural task that does not. We predict that angry face feedback will improve learning in a deliberative task when executive function is challenged. We tested two competing hypotheses regarding the interactive effects of deliberative emotional biases on automatic feedback processing: (1) If deliberative emotion regulation and automatic feedback are interactive we expect happy face feedback to improve learning and angry face feedback to impair learning in older adults because cognitive control is available. (2) If deliberative emotion regulation and automatic feedback are not interactive we predict that emotional face feedback will not improve procedural learning regardless of valence. Results demonstrate that older adults show persistent deficits relative to younger adults during procedural category learning suggesting that deliberative emotional biases do not interact with automatic feedback processing. Interestingly, a subgroup of older adults identified as potentially using deliberative strategies tended to learn as well as younger adults with angry relative to happy feedback, matching the pattern observed in the deliberative task. Results suggest that deliberative emotional biases can improve deliberative learning, but have no effect on procedural learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.