Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31094536›Full record

ArticlePsychology and aging2019

Associative interference in older and younger adults.

Rachel L Burton, Isabel Lek, Roger A Dixon, Jeremy B Caplan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology and aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rachel L BurtonDepartment of Psychology.
Isabel LekDepartment of Psychology.
Roger A DixonDepartment of Psychology.
Jeremy B CaplanDepartment of Psychology.

Funding

LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF COGNITIVE AGINGR01AG008235 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA · PI DIXON, ROGER A · 1989 to 2017
$2.3M
Alberta Centre on AgingAlberta Ingenuity FundNational Institutes of Health; National Institute on AgingNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNIA NIH HHS R01 AG008235
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthy older adults are more challenged by associative interference than younger adults, but prior results could have been due to differences in list discrimination ability. We used a procedure that assessed interference without requiring knowledge of list membership to test the hypothesis that older adults (60-74 years old) would show more pronounced effects of associative interference in AB/AC learning. Despite our use of a self-paced, rather than timed, study procedure, older adults performed at lower levels of accuracy than younger adults, replicating the well established associative deficit in aging (Naveh-Benjamin & Mayr, 2018). Older participants also displayed more proactive interference on average. Older participants' memory for AB and AC showed statistical independence, resembling earlier data from younger participants with a timed study procedure (Burton, Lek, & Caplan, 2017). However, younger participants, with the current self-paced procedure, produced a facilitating relationship between memory for AB and AC. Thus, younger participants not only resolved, but reversed associative interference. List discrimination could not explain these age differences. Taken together, these results extend the associative deficit in aging, finding increased susceptibility to associative proactive interference and less resolution of associative interference in older than younger participants, even when given the opportunity to compensate during self-paced study. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

AgedAgingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecognition, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID31094536
PMCPMC6548190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.