ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2021
Memory updating through aging: different patterns for socially meaningful (and not) stimuli.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of metacognition and schematic support in younger and older adults' episodic memory.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
- Therapist reactions to patient personality: A pilot study of clinicians' emotional and neural responses using three clinical vignettes from in treatment series.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUpdating is a crucial function responsible of working memory integrity, allowing relevant information to be active and inhibiting irrelevant one; updating has been studied mainly with verbal stimuli, less with faces, stimuli with high adaptive value and social meaning.
aimOur aim was to test age-related differences in updating for different stimuli in three different age groups: young adults (range 20-30 years), young-old (range 60-75 years) and older-old participants (range 77-87 years).
methodsTo this end, we administered control measures (i.e., vocabulary and visuospatial tasks), span tasks (forward, backward) and two updating tasks: one with no socially relevant material (i.e., letters) and another one with socially relevant material (i.e., human faces, where, in particular, the combination between facial expression and gaze direction was manipulated). In both tasks we collected response times (RTs) at different steps of an updating task (i.e., encoding, maintaining, and updating goal-relevant information). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We found that age linearly produces an increase in processing speed regardless the stimulus considered, either letter or human face. However, with face stimuli, the magnitude of the difference is greater for the letter updating task, than for the face updating task. In turn, the results claim for a stimulus-specific updating process as the age-related decline is less pronounced when socially meaningful stimuli are involved than when no socially meaningful ones are.
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.