Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37777585›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2023

Episodic and semantic feeling-of-knowing in aging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Méline Devaluez, Audrey Mazancieux, Céline Souchay

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Metacognition and metacognitive monitoring in aging.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Méline Devaluez *LPNC, CNRS, UMR 5105, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. meline.devaluez@hotmail.fr.
Audrey Mazancieux *Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, NeuroSpin Center, Institute for Life Sciences Frédéric Joliot, Fundamental Research Division, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives, INSERM, Université Paris-Sud, Université, Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. audrey.mazancieux@gmail.com.
Céline SouchayLPNC, CNRS, UMR 5105, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A complex pattern of preservation and deterioration in metacognition in aging is found, especially regarding predicting future memory retrieval (i.e., feeling-of-knowing, FOK). While semantic FOK (sFOK) is preserved with age, studies on episodic tasks (eFOK) produce equivocal findings. We present a meta-analysis of 20 studies on eFOK and sFOK, analyzing the difference in metacognitive sensitivity between 922 younger and 966 older adults, taking into account the difference in memory performance. The sFOK studies yielded no overall age effect (8 effects, g = -0.10 [-0.29, 0.10]). However, we found a reliable age-group difference on eFOK (22 effects, g = 0.53 [0.28, 0.78]), which was moderated when considering recognition performance. Moreover, using aggregated data of 134 young and 235 older adults from published and unpublished studies from our lab, we investigated memory performance as an explanation of the eFOK deficit. We show that older adults are less metacognitively sensitive than younger adults for eFOKs which is, at least partly, due to the age-related memory decline. We highlight two non-exclusive explanations: a recollection deficit at play in the first and second order tasks, and a confound between first order performance and the measure used to assess metacognitive sensitivity.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicSemanticsJudgmentMental RecallRecognition, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID37777585
PMCPMC10542372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.