ArticlePsychological research2024
Retrieving autobiographical memories in autobiographical contexts: are age-related differences in narrated episodic specificity present outside of the laboratory?
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- In here and out there: Evidence that age-related differences in memory specificity are attenuated in natural social conversations.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2026Article
- Beyond who, what, and where: Findings from two experiments on age group differences in narrative elaborateness of autobiographical events.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Modeling memories, predicting prospections: Automated scoring of autobiographical detail narration using large language models.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- "I did it before, so I can do it again(?)": Recalling success, expectations of future success and the impact of ease-of-retrieval and attributions.Psychological research · 2025Article
- A novel scoring protocol reveals age-related differences in abstract compared to concrete thinking in cued autobiographical remembering.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Autobiographical Interview, a method for evaluating detailed memory of real-world events, reliably detects differences in episodic specificity at retrieval between young and older adults in the laboratory. Whether this age-associated reduction in episodic specificity for autobiographical event retrieval is present outside of the laboratory remains poorly understood. We used a videoconference format to administer the Autobiographical Interview to cognitively unimpaired older adults (N = 49, M = 69.5, SD = 5.94) and young adults (N = 54, M = 22.5, SD = 4.19) who were in their homes at the time of retrieval. Relative to young adults, older adults showed reduced episodic specificity in their home environment, as reflected by fewer episodic or "internal" details (t (101) = 3.23, p = 0.009) and more "external" details (i.e., semantic, language-based details) (t (101) = 3.60, p = 0.003). These findings, along with detail subtype profiles in the narratives, bolster the ecological validity of the Autobiographical Interview and add promise to the use of virtual cognitive testing to improve the accessibility, participant diversity, scalability, and ecological validity of memory research.
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.