Modeling age differences in effects of pair repetition and proactive interference using a single parameter.

Abstract

In this article, we apply the REM model (Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997) to age differences in associative memory. Using Criss and Shiffrin's (2005) associative version of REM, we show that in a task with pairs repeated across 2 study lists, older adults' reduced benefit of pair repetition can be produced by a general reduction in the diagnosticity of information stored in memory. This reduction can be modeled similarly well by reducing the overall distinctiveness of memory features, or by reducing the accuracy of memory encoding. We report a new experiment in which pairs are repeated across 3 study lists and extend the model accordingly. Finally, we extend the model to previously reported data using the same task paradigm, in which the use of a high-association strategy introduced proactive interference effects in young adults but not older adults. Reducing the diagnosticity of information in memory also reduces the proactive interference effect. Taken together, the modeling and empirical results reported here are consistent with the claim that some age differences that appear to be specific to associative information can be produced via general degradation of information stored in memory. The REM model provides a useful framework for examining age differences in memory as well as harmonizing seemingly conflicting prior modeling approaches for the associative deficit. (PsycINFO Database Record

Age-related differences in associative memory: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives.

“…A recent debate of this issue was presented in several articles of Psychology and Aging, contrasting the DRYAD (Density of Representations Yields Agerelated Deficits; Benjamin, 2016) and the ADH approaches . Applying the REM model (Retrieving Effectively from Memory; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997), the article by Stephens and Overman (2018) analyzes data from several experiments and provides evidence implying that specific age-related associative deficits can at least partially be attributed to more general mechanisms, potentially related to older adults having fewer informative or diagnostic features with which to represent stimuli in memory. However, it remains to be seen whether this model can account for the range of critical experimental effects, including, for example, the pattern of secondary-task effects, which has been proven particularly challenging for globaldeficit theories .…”

“…The article by Stephens and Overman (2018) addresses the degree to which age-related differential memory deficits in associative relative to item memory can be explained by a single factor related to the degradation of information stored in memory. This suggestion is related to attempts in the cognitive aging literature to assess whether effects indicating differential performance patterns for younger and older adults (in the current case in associative and item memory performance) must be explained by specific mechanisms or can be explained by a more general mechanism.…”

Understanding associative false memories in aging using multivariate analyses

“…This suggests that there is an inherent difference in the cognitive and neural processing of the four target trial types, based on their current and past configural history, that is upheld within the both the occipital and parietal cortices. The pattern of results across trial types also suggests that the diagnosticity of the information that is encoded (Stephens & Overman, 2018) is increased when the configural congruency matches between encoding and retrieval (i.e., II and IC congruent configurations). This difference may reflect reduced demands on strategic processing, which may be particularly beneficial to older adults.…”

“…Thus, it cannot be concluded that both age groups encode and maintain the same information from encoding to retrieval, simply that there is no age difference in the relative similarity in patterns of encoding and retrieval activity across age groups. It may be that younger adults encode and maintain more nuanced or detailed associative representations compared to older adults, whereas older adults process information in a more generic or gist-based manner (e.g., Pierce, Sullivan, Schacter, & Budson, 2005; Schacter, Koutstaal, & Norman, 1997; Stephens & Overman, 2018; Tun, Wingfield, Rosen, & Blanchard, 1998). With more advanced analyses, we will hopefully be able to assess the specificity of the memory representations across age groups.…”

List-strength effects in older adults in recognition and free recall

“…Since its initial publication, the model has undergone several major developments, including the search of associative memory (SAM; ) and retrieving effectively from memory (REM; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997) models, which have been successful in accounting for a variety of phenomena across different tasks. As successful as these models have been in stimulating new research with young adults, they have not been applied to the issues of aging and memory (with one exception, in which REM was used to model associative recognition in older adults; Stephens & Overman, 2018). The purpose of the current investigation is to examine age-related changes in episodic memory using a paradigm that was foundational in the development of REM-known as the list-strength effect (LSE), or the mixed/pure list paradigm Shiffrin et al, 1990;Tulving & Hastie, 1972).…”