Presentation autobiographical memory
1 like1,105 views
This study examined age-related differences in episodic and semantic autobiographical memory retrieval. Younger and older adults were asked to recall life events from different periods of their lives with varying levels of retrieval support. The results showed that older adults recalled fewer episodic details and more semantic details compared to younger adults. Providing specific probes about event details increased recall of episodic information for both age groups, particularly for older adults recalling more remote events. This suggests that retrieval support can reduce some age-related deficits in autobiographical memory retrieval.
Presentation autobiographical memory
- 1. Aging and Autobiographical Memory: Dissociating Episodic From Semantic Retrieval by Levine, Svoboda, Hay, Winocur & Moscovitch (2004) N A I M A N I G A R M S S T U D E N T D E P T . O F P S Y C H O L O G Y U N I V E R S I T Y O F D H A K A 1
- 2. What am I going to Present? • Defining Key Variables • Relevant Studies • Rationale • Research questions • Hypotheses • Purpose • Method & data analysis • Results • Discussion • Evaluation 2
- 3. Key Variables Autobiographical memory is memory for the events of one’s life. (Conway and Rubin, 1993) 3
- 4. Key Variables Cont. 4 Episodic memory Conscious Recollection Autonoetic or Self-knowing Awareness (Tulving, 1972; Wheeler, Stuss, and Tulving, 1997)
- 5. Key Variables Cont . Semantic memory Ourselves General Knowledge Noetic Or Knowing awareness Conscious Recollection (Tulving, 1972; Wheeler et al, 1997) Retrieval 5
- 6. Relevant Studies Zacks, Hasher & Li, (2000) (McIntyre & Craik, 1987; Spencer & Raz, 1995) Aging Retrieval explicit, effortful, and unstructured retrieval tasks Younger Adults Episodic contextual details Episodic contextual details Older Adults 6
- 7. Relevant Studies • Older adults’ recollections of manufactured real life events contain more elaborative statements related to personal thoughts or feelings than do those of younger adults (Hashtroudi et al., 1990). 7 Cont.
- 8. Relevant Studies Aging Episodic contextual details Prefrontal cortex Damagein Prefrontalcortex Retrieval (Schacter, 1987; Wheeler et al., 1997; West, 1996; Dupuis & Acker, 1998) Cont. 8
- 9. 9 Implicit Semantic knowledge Emotional material Retrieval support (Craik & McDowd, 1987; Carstensen & Turk Charles, 1994; Hay & Jacoby, 1999) Relevant Studies Cont.
- 10. 10 It was the first study- • Episodic and non-episodic processing • Manipulate retrieval support, and • Analyze retention-interval effects in younger and older adults.
- 11. Research Questions Does aging cause difference in retrieval of episodic from semantic autobiographical memory? Does manipulation of retrieval support enhance recalling? 11
- 12. Hypotheses Aging negatively affects episodic memory, whereas semantic memory is preserved or even facilitated among older adults. Manipulation of retrieval support for specific memory will enhance recalling. 12
- 13. Purpose Address these hypotheses directly by using a new measure: the Autobiographical Interview. 13
- 14. 14 15 younger (aged 19–34 years, M 23.5) 15 older (aged 66–89 years, M 73.5)
- 15. Stimuli Events from five life periods. Procedure Participants were asked to choose events from five life periods. Three retrieval support was manipulated : a) Recall b) General probe and c) Specific probe. Figure 1. Five life periods 15 Method Cont.
- 16. Cont. Recall. Free recall without any interruption from the examiner. General probe. Used to clarify instructions and to encourage greater recall of details. Specific probe. A structured interview, adapted from the Memory Characteristics Questionnaire (Johnson et al.,1988). 16 Method
- 17. Cont. Scoring and Data Analysis A standardized, manual-based procedure was used for scoring. • Quantitative scores: Text segmentation and their categorization. • Qualitative scores: Ratings assigned to the various categories. 17
- 18. Cont. Text Segmentation and Categorization Each memory was segmented into informational bits or details. There were two broad groups of details: 1.Internal and 2.External Rating Assignment • 0-3 point scale was used to measure qualitative re- experiencing. 18
- 19. 19
- 20. Cont. Figure 2. Younger adult’s autobiographical memory protocol. 20
- 21. Results Reliability and Validity of the Instrument 21 Figure 3. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Internal and external event.
- 22. Cont. Agreement on ratings composites was: 0.79 for Recall & For specific probe (0.41). Agreement for individual categories range from (0.60-0.90). Scale validity: significant correlations between the AMI and the Autobiographical Interview detail and rating composite (.65 and .68) which indicates construct validity of the scale. 22
- 23. Older adults produced fewer internal details and more external details than younger adults. Older adults consistently produced more factual details relating to semantic knowledge. There was a significant effect of specific probing of period 5 on the internal details for older adults. 23
- 24. THE EFFECTS OF AGE GROUP AND RETRIEVAL SUPPORT ON COMPOSITE MEASURES OF AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL RECALL Figure 4. Mean number of internal and external details given per event during recall (left) and after specific probing (right) for all five life periods (top) and for period 5 alone (bottom). 24
- 25. THEEFFECTSOFAGEGROUPANDRETRIEVAL SUPPORTONSPECIFICCATEGORIESOF AUTOBIOGRAPHICALRECALL Figure 5. Mean number of details given per event for recall in different internal detail categories (top row) rating categories (middle row) and for external detail categories (bottom row). 25
- 26. The Effects of Life Period (Retention Interval) on Autobiographical Recall for OlderAdults Figure 6. Mean number of internal details retrieved by older adults across five life periods for recall and after specific probing. 26
- 27. Discussion Younger adults: Episodic details >Semantic details Older adults: Semantic details>Episodic details This finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., McIntyre & Craik, 1987; Spencer & Raz, 1995; Zacks et al., 2000) where they found age-related deficiency for episodic information. Whereas semantic information is preserved or even facilitated in older adults (e.g., Adams et al., 1997). 27
- 28. CONT. • Highly effective • 100% increase in details and raising ratings Manipulation of probing • No age effect for internal details. • Reduce age differences in episodic richness for internal details. Controlled retention interval 28
- 29. Cont. Contrary to expectations from prior research (Craik, 1983; Craik & McDowd, 1987). Manipulation of retrieval support Age differences Episodic reexperiencing 29
- 30. Cont. This manipulation was not sufficient to reduce differences in episodic richness as assessed by the ratings. Further research is needed to exclude this short-coming. 30
- 31. AI can be used to differentiate patients truly amnesic for remote personal information from those with inefficient retrieval operations who are not amnesic. Eyewitness testimony. In Campbell et al., (2002): Episodic recall is substantially increased by probing in patients with self-initiated retrieval deficits due to focal frontal lesions. 31
- 32. Small Sample Size Statistical weakness 32
- 33. Conclusion The Autobiographical Interview provides reliable and valid directories of episodic and semantic contributions to personal remote memory. Retrieval support did not differentially affect older adults’ recollections. Although it did reduce age differences when retention interval was controlled. 33
- 34. 34
Editor's Notes
- #5: storage (and retrieval) of specific events or episodes occurring in a particular place at a particular time.in conscious recollection of prior episode or state retrieval of episodic memory poses special kind of awareness which described as autonoetic or self-knowing (Wheeler, Stuss, and Tulving, 1997).
- #6: in which one thinks objectively about something one knows general knowledge about the world and ourselves and does not entail re-experiencing past events.retrieval does not possess the sense of conscious recollection of the past. It involves instead noetic or knowing awareness. (Wheeler et al, 1997)
- #7: Age-related decline is greatest for explicit, effortful, and unstructured retrieval tasks (Zacks, Hasher & Li, 2000).
- #10: Age effects are reduced or eliminated for general semantic knowledge, implicit, or habitually acquired information (Hay & Jacoby, 1999), emotional material (Carstensen & Turk Charles, 1994), or when retrieval support (i.e., cuing or recognition) is provided (Craik, 1983; Craik & McDowd, 1987).
- #11: It is the first study of autobiographical memory retrieval to examine indices of episodic and non-episodic processing (including specific content areas), to manipulate retrieval support, and to analyze retention-interval effects in younger and older adults.
- #15: Retention Interval: The period between a learning experience and its recall.
- #17: and designed to elicit additional details that were not spontaneously recalled.
- #19: For instance, “I dropped my sandwich in Portland last Wednesday” contains three details: an event (dropping the sandwich), a location (Portland), and a time (last Wednesday).
- #22: was assessed with intraclass correlation (one-way random effects model; McGraw & Wong, 1996), which
- #23: Agreement on ratings composites was: high for recall (0.79) but not for specific probe (0.41).
- #28: In this study, younger adults produced more episodic details than did older adults in autobiographical recall, whereas production of semantic details was unimpaired or enhanced in older adults.
- #32: In Svoboda et al. (2002) ongoing research with the Autobiographical Interview it was found that episodic recall is substantially increased by probing in patients with self-initiated retrieval deficits due to focal frontal lesions.