Recollection training and transfer effects in older adults: successful use of a repetition-lag procedure.

This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University] On: 22 December 2014, At: 19:00 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition: A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nanc20

Recollection Training and Transfer Effects in Older Adults: Successful Use of a Repetition-Lag Procedure a

a

a

Janine M. Jennings , Lauren M. Webster , Bethea A. Kleykamp & Dale Dagenbach

a

a

Wake Forest University Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Janine M. Jennings , Lauren M. Webster , Bethea A. Kleykamp & Dale Dagenbach (2005) Recollection Training and Transfer Effects in Older Adults: Successful Use of a RepetitionLag Procedure, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition: A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development, 12:3, 278-298, DOI: 10.1080/138255890968312 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/138255890968312

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 19:00 22 December 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 12:278–298 Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis, Inc. ISSN: 1382-5585/05 print; 1744-4128 online DOI: 10.1080/138255890968312

Recollection Training and Transfer Effects in Older Adults: Successful Use of a Repetition-Lag Procedure Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 19:00 22 December 2014

print; 1382-5585 ,NANC Aging, Vol. 1744-4128 12, Neuropsychology, No. 03, online May 2005: andpp. Cognition 1–38

Recollection Janine M. Jennings Training et al. and Transfer Effects

JANINE M. JENNINGS, LAUREN M. WEBSTER, BETHEA A. KLEYKAMP AND DALE DAGENBACH Wake Forest University

ABSTRACT We examined an approach aimed at training consciously-controlled recollection, introduced by Jennings and Jacoby (2003), for its ability to replicate and generalize. A continuous recognition task, requiring recollection to identify the occurrence of repeated items over gradually increasing lag intervals (number of intervening items between the first and second presentation of a repeated word), was given to a group of older adults twice a week for three weeks. Pre-and-post training performance was assessed on multiple measures and compared with a recognition practice and no contact control group. Recollection training proved successful; accurate identification of repeated items increased across a lag interval of 2 to 18 intervening items. Posttraining gains following recollection training were found on n-back, self-ordered pointing, source discrimination and digit symbol substitution, but not with reading span or the CVLT-II. No changes were identified in the other groups. Gains from recollection training seem to transfer successfully in older adults.

Attempts to ameliorate memory declines in older adults first focused on teaching encoding techniques such as the pegword mnemonic (Wood & Pratt, 1987) or method of loci (Kliegl, Smith & Baltes, 1989; Robertson-Tchabo, Hausman, & Arenberg, 1976; Rose & Yesavage, 1983; Yesavage & Rose, 1983), then later evolved to combine these mnemonics with other strategies, attentional skills and relaxation techniques in a multifactorial approach (e.g., Ball et al., 2002; Stigsdotter-Neely & Backman, 1993; Yesavage, 1983; Yesavage, 1984). Recently, training has become even more comprehensive comprised of educational sessions that address memory function, applying

Address correspondence to: Janine M. Jennings, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, 415 Greene Hall, Winston-Salem, NC, 27109, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

278


RECOLLECTION TRAINING AND TRANSFER EFFECTS

279

external aids, and developing encoding skills, such as categorization and elaborative processing (Foos, 1997; Mohs et al., 1998; Rapp, Brenes & Marsh, 2002; Troyer, 2001). When the outcomes of these efforts are examined the overall picture suggests that mnemonic techniques can produce significant improvements in memory performance (Verhaeghen, Marcoen, & Goossens, 1992) that can be maintained for at least six months (Scogin & Prohaska, 1992; Stigsdotter-Neely & Backman, 1993; 1995). However, the transfer of gains to other lab tasks, real world performance or subjective memory assessment has been negligible or limited to activities that are highly similar to the ones used at training (Ball et al., 2002; Best, Hamlett, & Davis, 1992; Edwards et al., 2001; Floyd & Scogin, 1997; Rebok, Rasmusson & Brandt, 1996; Stigsdotter-Neely & Backman, 1993; 1995). One constraint on continued strategy use or real world applicability seems to arise because these procedures do not correspond to many of the problems that older adults encounter in everyday life with the exception of list and name learning. For example, it is difficult to see how the method of loci can be applied to remember whether one has turned off the stove or already told a story to a particular individual. An equally compelling limitation of these techniques is that they are cognitively demanding, require explicit recall of new strategies, and may require older adults to unlearn their habitual encoding methods (Verhaeghen & Marcoen, 1996); demands that are especially difficult for situations in which the older adults are already memory impaired and cognitively overtaxed. In order to better help memory in older adults, some researchers have suggested that training needs to address a greater variety of encoding and retrieval processes (e.g., Camp et al., 1993), an approach taken by Jennings and Jacoby (2003) with a technique based on the dual process theory of memory (Jacoby, 1991; Mandler, 1980). This view draws a distinction between automatic (familiarity) and controlled (recollection) memory processes. Automatic processing is seen as fast, unaware, and under the control of stimuli rather than intention whereas consciously controlled processing is intentional, aware, and resource demanding (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1979; Mandler, 1980; Jacoby, 1991; Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). Research examining age-related changes in these two processes indicates that consciously controlled memory declines with age while automatic processes remain intact (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1979; Jennings & Jacoby, 1993), a pattern of results that led Jennings and Jacoby (2003) to selectively target consciously controlled processing for improvement with their repetition-lag procedure. In that technique, older adults were given a series of training sessions comprised of a 30-word study list, followed by a continuous recognition task consisting of study items and new items with the new items presented twice throughout the task. The participants’ job was to indicate which test items


280

JANINE M. JENNINGS ET AL.

were previously studied by responding “yes” to old items and “no” to new items at both their first and second occurrence. The repeated items were critical. The first test presentation of those items was expected to increase their familiarity (automatic memory), such that participants could misattribute this familiarity to the prior study phase, confuse repeated items with studied words, and mistakenly respond "yes". To accurately respond “no” to repeated items participants must rely on recollection, a consciously controlled process that entails the retrieval of one or more specific details from a prior event (e.g., Jacoby et al., 1993; Jacoby et al., 1997; Yonelinas, 2002). In particular, they must recollect that a repeated word was first presented during the test list rather than the study list (source information), recollect whether they have already responded to the word during the test phase (output monitoring), or recollect how recently the word first occurred in the experiment (temporal information). In addition, the number of intervening words between the first and second presentation of the repeated items was gradually increased across training sessions as performance improved. This manipulation was thought of as an incremented-difficulty technique for enhancing recollection because whatever participants did to recollect information at a short easy interval needed to be gradually adapted for ever-lengthening delays. At the start of recollection training older participants were poor at identifying repeated words when three items intervened between the first and second presentation of a repeated word, but by the end of six hours of training were able to perform as well as a typical young adult when an average of 28 items intervened between repetitions. Evidence obtained from a control group, who received the same amount of practice with a version of the task that did not include the incremented-difficulty technique, indicated that the experimental group’s gains stemmed from the gradual increase in delay. Given the success of a memory training technique is predicated not only on its task-specific gains but also on its potential to confer benefits to other tests, the obvious question to explore with the repetition-lag procedure is whether the improvements shown by older adults can generalize to other measures. Because the procedure was intended to improve the general use of recollection rather than teach a specific strategy, and because lab measures of recollection can correlate with everyday memory errors (Jacoby, Jennings & Hay, 1996) we assumed that training should lead to enhancement on other cognitive tasks. To explore this notion pre-and-post training tests were administered to a recollection training group and two control groups (recognition practice and no contact). The assessment tests consisted of verbal n-back (Dobbs & Rule, 1989; Jonides et al., 1997), self-ordered pointing (Petrides & Milner, 1982), source discrimination, digit symbol substitution (Wechsler, 1981), reading span (Daneman and Carpenter, 1980), and the California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II, Delis et al., 2001).



281

These measures were chosen to examine near and far transfer effects relative to recollection training. Near transfer tasks are those that tap the same processes or abilities targeted by the training task but are comprised of different classes of stimuli. For example, Stigsdotter-Neely and Backman (1995) trained participants to use interactive imagery and the method of loci with concrete words but assessed near transfer effects with recall of objects, abstract words, and subject-performed tests. Far transfer tasks, on the other hand, appraise gains in processes or abilities outside of the training domain, such as measuring benefits on Stroop and WAIS-R Digit Span after training in processing speed (Edwards et al., 2001). We categorized our measures as near or far transfer on the basis of their underlying processes rather than the specific cognitive system with which they have been linked. Specifically, we considered n-back, self-ordered pointing, and source discrimination to be near-transfer measures because they all entail retrieval of contextual information (temporal, output, and source monitoring, respectively), and as such overlap with the requirements of repetition-lag despite differing in their working memory versus long-term memory demands. In this regard, n-back and self-ordered pointing are typically classified as working memory measures whereas repetition-lag performance can extend over intervals longer than those associated with working memory. Similarly, the source discrimination task taps memory for the study phase after an interval that would be considered long-term. Nonetheless, our expectation was that recollection training would yield benefits on all of these measures without any concomitant improvements following recognition practice or no contact. In contrast, digit symbol substitution, reading span, and the CVLT-II seemed better categorized as indices of far transfer. Because digit symbol substitution is a measure of speed of processing based on matching symbols to numbers there appears to be little overlap between it and the repetition-lag procedure. The CVLT-II and reading span task also do not seem to have much in common with repetition-lag as the CVLT-II consists of long-term memory for item information rather than contextual information, and reading span measures working memory capacity, which would not seem to be malleable as a function of recollection training. Consequently, little improvement was expected on these tasks from the pre-to-post training sessions.

METHOD Participants Initially, thirty-four older adults were recruited to participate in either the recognition practice or recollection training groups. All individuals were White, Wake Forest University Alumni, who were high functioning, well educated, living independently in the community, and in self-reported good


282


health. Both groups were matched as closely as possible for age, gender, years of education, and performance on the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE, Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975). The recollection training group consisted of nine males and eight females with an average age of 70.06 years (SE = 1.71), an average of 17.06 years of education (SE = 0.56), and an average score of 29.18 (SE = .33) on the MMSE. The recognition practice group was comprised of twelve males and five females with an average age of 70.82 years (SE = 1.34), an average of 17.50 years of education (SE = 0.55), and an average score of 29.59 (SE = .15) on the MMSE. There were no significant differences in age, t (32) = 0.35, p = .73, education, t (32) = 0.54, p =.60, nor MMSE scores, t (32) = 1.12, p =.27, between the two groups. Because a preliminary inspection of the data with 13 participants in each group suggested the recognition practice group may have experienced mild improvements on some post-assessment tasks (Jennings et al., 2002), we added a no contact control group. This group was designed to determine whether performance gains following training could be attributed to practice effects with the pre-and-post assessment tasks as opposed to an actual influence of the recollection or recognition practice techniques. The no contact group consisted of four male and eight female healthy, high-functioning, community dwelling, White, Wake Forest Alumni. Due to difficulties in recruitment the no contact group was smaller (n=12) and significantly younger (M=64.92, SE=1.87) than the recollection training, t (32) = −2.03, p = .05, and recognition practice participants, t (32) = −2.64, p = .01. However, there were no differences in the number of years of education or MMSE scores for the three groups (all t’s < 1.57, all p’s > .13). The no contact group had an average of 17.67 years of education (SE = .62) and an average MMSE score of 29.17 (SE=.24). Although it is unfortunate that we were not better able to match the age of the no contact participants with the other two groups, a potential age confound would likely work against the hypothesis that pre-versus-post training benefits will be exclusive to the older recollection training group, particularly as age is a variable known to influence training efficacy (Verhaeghen, Marcoen & Goosens, 1992; Yesavage, Sheikh, Friedman, & Tanke, 1990). Materials Training Tasks Recollection Training For recollection training, we made use of the repetition-lag technique described above (Jennings & Jacoby, 2003). In that procedure, a total of 2,100 concrete nouns were chosen from The Toronto Word Pool (Friendly, Franklin, Hoffman & Rubin, 1982) and Thorndike and Lorge word norms (1944). Of these, 1680 words were divided into 56 lists of 30 words. These lists were balanced for frequency of occurrence in the language. Twenty-eight



283

lists acted as study items for the training sessions while the other lists comprised the new items that were repeated. The remaining 420 words were divided into 28 lists of 15 words and acted as filler items. Five items from each filler list were randomly selected and presented as new words that were not repeated. These items were required to create the appropriate spacing for the lag intervals. Lists designated as study, new, and filler were identical for each participant, as was done in Jennings & Jacoby’s (2003) original study1, and were presented on IBM laptop computers. Participants were given four training sessions a day, two days per week for three weeks. This schedule was chosen to be less onerous for the participants than Jennings and Jacoby’s (2003) “seven consecutive business days” commitment and designed to be more in keeping with other training studies (Best, Hamlett & Davis, 1992; Kliegl, Smith & Baltes, 1989; StigsdotterNeely & Backman, 1995). Each training session consisted of a study and test phase, which made use of one study, one new, and one filler list. During the study phase each word was presented for two seconds and participants were asked to read the word aloud and remember it. For the subsequent test phase, participants were shown the 30 study words and 30 new words with the 30 new words repeated at one of two different lags (number of intervening items between the first and second presentation of a repeated word). The participants’ task was to identify any words they had read aloud from study; so they were to respond "yes" to study words and "no" to new items during both their first and second presentation by pressing one of two computer keys. When participants responded correctly, the message "correct" appeared on the screen. When they made an error no message appeared. Participants were asked to pay attention to the feedback and to try to learn from their mistakes. They were given unlimited time during the test phase, and each of the four sessions required about 12 to 15 minutes. The incrementing procedure was implemented by gradually increasing the lag intervals as a function of successful performance. Specifically, participants had to attain a criterion, based on the level of accuracy shown by young adults in previous work (Jennings & Jacoby, 1997), for the lag intervals to increase. The criterion set for each session was one error in identifying the repeated items for Lags 1 to 4, and two errors for Lags 8 to 48. The incrementing procedure worked as follows. In Session 1, 15 words were repeated after one intervening item (Lag 1) had occurred between the first and second presentation of each word while the other 15 words were repeated after two intervening items (Lag 2). If participants performed to criterion at both inter1

Use of a large number of study and distractor lists, which were balanced for word frequency and randomly assigned to different conditions (study, new, filler), makes it unlikely that a list effect could be mistaken for one of training, particularly as individual participants showed improvements during different training sessions with different lists (see also Jennings & Jacoby, 2003).


284


vals, then in Session 2 the lag conditions were increased so that 15 words were again repeated after one intervening item (Lag 1) and 15 words were repeated after three intervening items (Lag 3). If participants again reached criterion, the lags increased to two and four items and so on. The lag interval pairs used for training consisted of 1 and 2; 1 and 3; 2 and 4; 2 and 8; 4 and 12; 4 and 16; 8 and 20; 8 and 24; 12 and 28; 12 and 32; 16 and 36; 16 and 40; 20 and 44; and finally, 20 and 48. These pairs were chosen so that participants were always working at one lag interval they had already mastered and should therefore be easy, and a second interval that was new and more difficult. If participants did not achieve criterion at both lags, they continued to work at those intervals for as many sessions as needed to meet criterion. Once criterion was reached the lag intervals increased in the order listed above. To evaluate performance gains, we first determined the length of the interval at which participants could perform to criterion by the end of Session 3 on the first day of training. This interval was believed to represent participants’ ability to perform the task before training had much of an influence but allowed them two sessions to acquire experience with the mechanics of the procedure. We then compared that interval to the longest lag interval at which they were able to achieve criterion by the end of the six-day procedure (Jennings & Jacoby, 2003). Recognition Practice This task was adopted from previous work exploring cognitive training techniques with older adults (Rupard & Dagenbach, 2001) and was judged to be comparable in time, effort, and social stimulation to the repetition-lag technique. For the recognition task, 1320 concrete nouns were taken from the South Florida Word Norm Pool (Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 1989) and randomly divided into 12 sets of 10 words and 60 sets of 20 words. These sets were then organized into study and test lists, such that participants received a block of six study/test lists per training day for six days. The first study list for each block consisted of 10 items followed by a 20 item test list (10 study words and 10 distractors). The remaining five study lists consisted of 20 items, which were presented again at test with 20 distractors. In order to equate the amount of time the recognition practice and recollection training groups received cognitive stimulation, a second recognition task using pictorial stimuli was included. For this phase, the stimuli comprised 1320 photographs of items, such as a pair of shoes and a sailboat, which were taken from Microsoft Office Clip Art files (1998). In keeping with the verbal task, these stimuli were also randomly divided into 12 sets of 10 pictures and 60 sets of 20 pictures, and organized into six blocks of study and test lists according to the same specifications as the verbal items. Similar to the recollection training technique, participants received two days of recognition practice a week for three weeks. For each day, they were presented with one block of six verbal study/test lists and one block of six



285

pictorial study/test lists. The order of the verbal and pictorial blocks was alternated across training days. For the verbal study lists, words were presented one at a time on an IBM laptop computer. Participants were asked to read the words aloud and learn them for the recognition test that would follow. During the test phase they were again shown words one at a time and asked to respond "yes" to study words and "no" to new items by pressing one of two computer keys. When participants responded they were given feedback regarding 1) their accuracy, 2) their response time in seconds, and 3) the average number of items they had gotten correct thus far. They were asked to pay attention to the feedback in order to improve their accuracy and speed. The procedure with the pictorial stimuli was identical except the pictures were presented at a four second rate. The order of the study and distractor items was counterbalanced across lists. Transfer Tasks N-Back Task A modified version of the parametric n-back task used by Dobbs and Rule (1989) and Jonides et al. (1997) was adopted. The consonants “b, d, f, g, h, j, m, n, q, r, and t” acted as stimuli. These letters were presented individually on the computer screen for 1 sec followed by a blank screen for 2.5 sec and were presented in upper or lowercase (Kubat-Silman, et al., 2002; Nystrom et al., 2000). Participants were asked to study each letter and indicate whether the presented item was the same as the nth back letter, with n ranging from 1 to 3, by pressing one of two computer keys to indicate “yes” or “no”. For example, in the 2-back task, participants were shown “r, T, R” and were expected to respond “yes” indicating they had seen the letter “r” two trials back. Case differences in letters were used for some trials so that matches had to be made according to verbal rather than physical attributes. For each level (1, 2, & 3) participants had to determine whether there were matches for a total of 45 trials. So that each of the 45 stimuli had a target letter comparison, the number of trials presented for each n-level was 45 plus the indicated number of stimuli back in the sequence (i.e., 45 + n). Of those 45 trials, 14 correctly matched the items n-back in the series while the remaining 31 were no-match trials. Within those no-match trials, 25 items were spaced between an identical letter by at least 8 trials while the remaining 6 items occurred near the n-back set (Jonides et al., 1997; KubatSilman et al., 2002). For the 3-back task, these items occurred just inside the n-back set by 1 or 2 items. For 2-back, the items occurred either 1 or 3 items earlier in the set. For 1-back, these items occurred either 2 or 3 items outside the set. Prior to starting each task, eight practice trials plus the indicated number of stimuli n-back in the sequence (i.e., 8 + n) were presented to ensure the instructions were clear.

286


Self-Ordered Pointing Task


Participants were given 16 sheets of paper with a 4 x 4 matrix of 16 Attneave shapes (Attneave & Arnoult, 1956) presented on each page in a different order. For each page participants were required to choose one shape such that all 16 shapes were chosen by the last page with no shape chosen more than once (Petrides & Milner, 1982). Participants were given as much time as they wanted to make their choices, and this procedure was repeated three times using a different ordering of the same shapes for each trial. Source Monitoring Test For this task, 240 concrete nouns were selected from the South Florida Word Norms (Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 1989) so that there was no overlap in words with the training conditions. These words were divided into six groups of 30 items and balanced for imagery, concreteness and frequency of occurrence in the language. One set of 30 words was presented to participants one at a time on an IBM laptop computer at a 2.5 second rate, and participants were asked to study them for a memory test that would follow. They then had to listen to a second list of 30 words played by computer CD at a 2.5 second rate, which they were also told to remember. Following the aural presentation, a recognition test consisting of the 60 presented words and 60 distractors was administered, and participants had to indicate, by pressing one of three computer keys, which words they had read or heard earlier and which were new. Items were counterbalanced, such that all words were read, heard, or distractors for both the pre-and-post training assessments across all participants. Digit Symbol Substitution The digit symbol substitution task from the WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981) was given to participants. This task consisted of a template of nine numbers that corresponded to one of nine different symbols. Beneath that template, participants were given several lines of numbers (90 numbers in total) and asked to record the appropriate symbol for as many numbers as possible in 60 seconds. Reading Span Task Sixty-two sentences obtained from Daneman and Carpenter (1980), such as “A narrow ribbon of smoke wound its way out of the red brick chimney”, comprised the stimuli for this task. These sentences were presented via an IBM laptop computer, and participants were instructed to read the sentences aloud and remember the last word of each one. Once the participant finished reading the sentence, the experimenter advanced the computer to the next one to restrict the possibility of rehearsal. After two sentences were shown, participants were asked to recall the last words of each sentence in their order of presentation. Task difficulty was then increased one sentence


287

at a time until a level of six sentences was reached. This procedure was repeated three times. Prior to starting the task, one practice trial of two sentences was administered to determine whether the task was understood.


CVLT-II (Delis et al., 2001) Participants were given the standardized CVLT-II. They first heard a list of 16 shopping items (List A) read to them at a 1 second rate and were asked to report as many of the items as they could immediately after the presentation. This process was repeated four more times and followed by an interference list of 16 shopping items (List B). Subsequent to List B, participants were given the short-delay free and cued recall tests for List A, followed by a 20 minute interval, after which the long-delay free recall, longdelay cued recall, and recognition tests for List A were administered. Procedure Following approval by the Wake Forest University institutional review board, participants were tested individually for the pre-and-post training assessments and training procedures either in the Developmental Psychology lab at Wake Forest University or in participants’ own homes depending on their preference. An approximately equal number of participants from each group chose to be tested/trained in the lab (65% of the recollection training group, 65% of the recognition practice group, and 75% of the no contact control group) suggesting that testing site should not influence the study’s results. All participants were first given a 21/2 hour battery of tests that began with a general health questionnaire, followed by the MMSE. The questionnaire and MMSE were done to ensure that participants were in good physical health and not exhibiting signs of dementia. The measures designed to evaluate training generalization were then administered in the following order for both the pre-and-post training sessions: 1) digit symbol substitution, 2) source memory test, 3) CVLT: five trials of List A immediate free recall, 4) CVLT: List B, 5) CVLT: short delay free recall, 6) CVLT: short delay cued recall, 7) n-back in increasing order of difficulty (1-back, 2-back and 3-back), 8) CVLT: long delay free recall 9) CVLT: long delay cued recall, 10) selfordered pointing task, 11) CVLT: recognition and 12) reading span task. The recollection training and recognition practice procedures began the next week, and were administered for approximately 50–60 minutes a day, two days a week for three weeks with at least two days separating training within a given week. During the three week period following assessment, the no contact group received no instructions or had any interaction with the experimenters. The generalization measures were then repeated during the fifth week in the order described above. Alternate forms of the source memory and CVLT-II tasks were used across the pre-and-post training sessions,

288


and counterbalanced across participants. The materials for n-back, selfordered pointing, digit-symbol substitution, and reading span were constant across the two assessments. RESULTS Training Tasks Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 19:00 22 December 2014

Recollection Training As mentioned, the effectiveness of recollection training was assessed by comparing the difference in the interval length at which criterion was reached between the first and last days of the procedure. Once we established those intervals in the manner described elsewhere (Jennings & Jacoby, 2003), we compared the two values to determine whether participants were able to attain criterion at longer intervals by the end of Day 6 than at Day 1 using a paired samples t-test. The results showed a significant improvement between the first and last training day, t (16) = −3.64, p = .002. On the first day of training, participants could only perform to criterion with an average lag interval of 2 intervening items (SE = .19) but by the last day of training they were able to perform to criterion when an average of 18.47 (SE = 4.64) items intervened. Recognition Practice To evaluate whether participants showed any gains in the picture and word recognition tasks, we determined the average level of accuracy (hitsfalse alarms) across the six training lists for both stimulus types and each training day (see Table 1). Two one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted with day as the variable of interest. The results showed no significant change in recognition accuracy for either words, F(5, 80) < 1, or pictures, F(5, 80) < 1. In addition, we examined the average reaction time (RT) for hits and correct rejections across training sessions for each practice day (Table 1) using two 2 x 6 repeated measures ANOVAs. For the word stimuli, participants were significantly faster in making hits relative to correct rejections, F(1, 16) = 35.23, p < .001, and their RTs decreased across days, F(5, 80) = 3.64, p = .005, with no significant interaction between response type and day, F(5, 80) < 1. Similarly, RTs for the picture stimuli were significantly faster for hits versus correct rejections, F(1, 16) = 24.77, p = .0001, and RTs diminished with practice, F(5, 80) = 3.39, p = .008. However, there was a significant response type by day interaction, F(5, 80) = 4.40, p = .001, suggesting RTs to correct rejections decreased more with practice than RTs to hits. Overall, these analyses indicate that participants’ accuracy did not change across days, although they became faster at making correct responses.

289


TABLE 1. Accuracy (Proportion of Hits-False Alarms), Reaction Time to Hits, and Reaction Time to Correct Rejections (CRs) for Word and Picture Recognition for each Day of Recognition Practice Words

Session Day 1


Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6

Pictures

Accuracy (Hits-FAs)

RT: Hits (msecs)

RT: CRs (msecs)

Accuracy (Hits-FAs)

RT: Hits (msecs)

RT: CRs (msecs)

.81 .03 .79 .04 .80 .04 .80 .04 .77 .04 .76 .04

1015.19 46.25 983.26 39.19 988.96 39.69 953.36 37.24 968.26 41.72 935.61 35.81

1115.32 52.51 1093.66 49.58 1085.44 49.06 1043.58 46.77 1052.23 51.68 1019.74 38.63

.80 .02 .80 .03 .80 .02 .82 .02 .81 .03 .81 .03

1060.65 37.78 1070.17 42.61 1053.61 38.17 1075.85 39.86 1064.56 41.37 1024.23 43.41

1196.47 43.78 1165.39 40.22 1171.05 45.39 1162.91 43.51 1118.63 44.47 1080.42 47.99

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

Note. Seventeen individuals took part each day with both sets of stimuli.

Transfer Tasks To assess the effects of training on the various transfer tasks (see Tables 2 and 3), we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the pre-training test scores for all 13 measures to ensure there were no differences between the recollection training, recognition practice and no contact groups prior to training. The results showed no significant effect of group, Wilks’ F(26, 60) < 1, indicating that the three conditions were statistically equivalent before training was initiated. Given there were no pre-training differences between the groups, a 3 (group) x 2 (test time) mixed factor MANOVA, comparing pre-training versus post-training performance for all three groups across the 13 transfer measures, was then carried out. This analysis was designed to ascertain whether there were any differences in test scores between the pre-and-post training sessions and to determine whether such differences varied across the three groups. If the repetition-lag procedure did produce transfer effects one would hope to see a significant group by test interaction. As expected, a significant group x test interaction was found, Wilks’ F(26, 60) = 1.86, p =.03, as well as a significant effect of test session, Wilks’ F(13, 30) = 3.81, p =.002. There was no main effect of group, Wilks’ F(26, 60) = 1.11, p =.37. To understand what role recollection training played in the group x test interaction and main effect of test session, a series of 3 (group) x 2 (test time) mixed factor ANOVAs, comparing performance by the recollection training, recognition practice and no contact groups before and

290


TABLE 2. Pre-and-Post Training Assessment Performance on Each Transfer Measure for the No Contact, Recognition Practice, and Recollection Training Groups No Contact

Task a

1-back


2-backa 3-backa Self-orderedPointingb Digit Symbolc Source Identificationd Reading Spane

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

Recognition Practice

Recollection Training

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

.91 .04 .47 .07 .34 .06 .24 .02 31.50 2.38 .52 .08 2.83 .34

.82 .07 .55 .08 .38 .07 .24 .04 32.08 2.56 .57 .06 3.08 .45

.86 .05 .63 .05 .38 .06 .25 .02 29.82 1.14 .54 .06 2.24 .20

.91 .03 .64 .05 .48 .07 .24 .01 31.53 1.46 .63 .04 2.53 .24

.76 .07 .49 .07 .30 .05 .24 .02 27.41 1.72 .47 .05 2.71 .31

.90 .04 .70 .04 .41 .05 .18 .02 30.71 1.63 .62 .05 2.41 .27

Note. aProportion of hits - false alarms. Proportion of repetition errors: lower values reflect better performance. c Number completed. d Proportion of recognized visual items correctly identified as ‘read’. e Number correct. Data reflect 12 No Contact participants, 17 Recognition Practice participants, and 17 Recollection Training participants for all tasks except the n-back measures, in which data for one Recollection Training participant were lost due to computer error. b

after training, were carried out for each of the transfer measures individually. Every ANOVA was followed by planned t-tests comparing pre-and-post training performance within each group. Main effects that entered into significant interactions are not reported, although it should be noted that for each of the following analyses there was no main effect of group (all F’s ≤ 1.36, all p’s ≥ .27). N-Back Tasks Performance on all three tasks was measured by the proportion of hits minus false alarms. Results from the 1-back task revealed a significant group by test interaction, F(2, 42) = 4.90, p =.01, which was driven by a significant increase in accuracy between the pre-and-post training sessions for the recollection training group, t(15) = -3.05, p = .008, that was not seen in the other two groups (t’s ≤ 1.33, p’s ≥ .21). A similar group by test interaction was found with the 2-back task, F(2, 42)=3.28, p =.05, and again, this result stemmed from an improvement in performance following recollection training only, t(15) = -3.75, p = .002 (t’s ≤ 1.35, p’s ≥ .21 for the other groups). In contrast, there was no significant group by test interaction for the 3-back


291


condition, F(2, 42) = 0.30, p = .74, although there was a significant main effect of test, F(1, 42) = 5.99, p = .02, suggesting that some performance gains were evident across the two assessments. A closer look at this effect with planned t-test comparisons suggested that increases were common to all groups but these effects were only marginally significant for the recollection training group, t(15) = -1.89, p =.08, and non-significant for the other participants (t’s ≤ 1.73, p’s ≥ .10). In short, these results show fairly consistent nback improvements with recollection training that are absent following recognition practice and no contact. Self-Ordered Pointing Task The proportion of repetition errors on the self-ordered pointing task yielded similar results to those seen with the 1-back and 2-back measures. A marginal group by test interaction was found, F(2, 43) = 2.63, p =.08, and was due solely to a significant increase in post-training performance (i.e., decrease in errors) by the recollection training group, t(16) = 3.86, p =.001. There was no task enhancement in the other two conditions (t’s ≤ 0.37, p’s ≥ .72). Source Discrimination Unfortunately, the IBM laptop computers used to conduct the assessments lacked the volume to ensure that all auditory stimuli were audible. Consequently, only the results for the visually presented items will be reported. To determine the source discrimination measure for these items we first calculated the number of visual items that were recognized, which consisted of all visual items labeled “read” or “heard” regardless of the correctness of that labeling, and then used that value to determine the proportion of recognized visual items that were correctly identified as “read” . In other words, we used the following calculation: p(called read)/(p(called read)+ p(called heard)). Similar to the 3-back task, there was no significant group x test interaction, F(2, 43) < 1, but there was a significant main effect of test time, F(1, 43) = 5.03, p = .03. A closer look at that result with planned t-tests showed the recollection training group alone improved significantly across test sessions, t(16)= -2.53, p = .02 (other t’s ≤ 1.40, p’s ≥ .18)2. It should also be noted that the overall recognition data for visual items showed neither a significant group x test interaction, F(2, 43) < 1 nor a significant main effect of test, F(1, 43) < 1. This result is interesting as it

2

Because analyses with planned t-tests following an ANOVA are less conservative than post hoc testing, all transfer measures were reanalyzed using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Differences Test with significance set at p=.05 to confirm the results. The pattern of findings was very similar to that already described, although pre-post training differences on source identification were no longer significant for the recollection-training group.

292


suggests that recognition performance did not benefit from the repeated experience provided to the recognition practice group.


Digit Symbol Substitution The pre-training versus post-training comparison conducted with digit symbol substitution resembled the outcome of the 3-back and source discrimination tasks. The group x test interaction was not significant, F(2, 43) = 1.96, p = .15, but there was a main effect of test time, F(1, 43) = 11.23, p = .002, with more items completed during the post-training test relative to the pre-training assessment. An examination of this main effect using planned ttests showed only significant gains in performance for the recollection training group, t(16) = -3.17, p = .006, although the recognition practice group did show marginal improvement, t(16) = -1.92, p = .073. Reading Span Task Unlike the other transfer measures, there was no significant effect of test, F(1, 43) < 1, nor a significant group x test interaction, F(2, 43) = 1.66, p = .20, on reading span. The number of items correctly remembered during this task appears unaffected by the training procedures. CVLT-II Similar to the reading span task, the CVLT-II yielded little evidence of training generalization. Analyses of the proportion of items recalled out of 16 were conducted on each of the following measures: 1) average of the five List A immediate free recall trials, 2) List B free recall, 3) short delay free recall, 4) short delay cued recall, 5) long delay free recall and 6) long delay cued recall (see Table 3). The recognition task was excluded because participants performed at near perfect levels during preassessment. The outcome of these analyses indicated no significant test by group interaction for any of the CVLT-II measures (all F’s < 1). There was, however, a significant main effect of test for the immediate recall score for List A, F(1, 43) = 5.82, p = .02. Planned t-tests suggested that this effect seemed to be most evident in the no contact group, t(11) = -1.89, p = .09, relative to the recollection training, t(16) = -1.4, p = .18, and recognition practice participants, t(16) = -1.02, p = .32, although the t-test results were only marginally significant. As for the remaining measures, there was no significant effect of test for the interference list (List B), F(1, 43) = 1.28, p = .265, or the long delay cued recall task, F(1, 43) = < 1, and only marginal effects for short delay free recall, F(1, 43) = 3.36, p = .074, short delay cued recall, F(1, 43) = 2.80, p = .102, and the long delay free recall task, F(1, 43) = 3.37, p = .074. An inspection of the group means for the pre-and-post training sessions suggests that these effects came mostly

293


TABLE 3. Proportion of Items Correctly Recalled on the CVLT-II during Pre-and-Post Training Assessment of the No Contact, Recognition Practice, and Recollection Training Groups No Treatment

Task List A 1 – 5


List B Short Delay Free Recall Short Delay Cued Recall Long Delay Free Recall Long Delay Cued Recall

M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

Recognition Practice

Recollection Training

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

.60 .04 .30 .04 .69 .08 .73 .07 .72 .07 .78 .06

.65 .04 .29 .04 .72 .08 .76 .04 .72 .08 .74 .06

.58 .03 .35 .03 .61 .05 .70 .04 .62 .05 .68 .04

.60 .03 .31 .02 .64 .04 .70 .04 .68 .05 .70 .04

.59 .04 .33 .04 .63 .06 .71 .05 .69 .06 .74 .05

.63 .05 .33 .03 .71 .07 .78 .06 .75 .06 .76 .06

Note. Data reflect 12 No Contact participants, 17 Recognition Practice participants, and 17 Recollection Training participants for all measures.

from the recollection training group in the short delay conditions, and by both the recognition practice and recollection group in long delay free recall, although these findings are too weak to have much implication with the power of the present work. DISCUSSION The results of the current study provide further support for the efficacy of the repetition-lag training procedure (Jennings & Jacoby, 2003). At the outset of training the recollection training group was only able to accurately identify the occurrence of a repeated item when an average of 2 items were shown between the first and second presentation of a repeated word. However, after six training sessions, these participants were able to perform as well as a typical young adult after a delay of 18 -19 intervening items. This improvement in performance replicates that found by Jennings and Jacoby (2003), although it should be noted that participants demonstrated much larger gains in that study showing an average increase in lag interval from 2 to 28 intervening items. Differences between the two studies are not unexpected as the current training group received one less day of training, and training was spread out over three weeks rather than conducted during seven consecutive business days. Consequently, the present results suggest that the repetition-lag procedure can produce strong, replicable effects even when the training procedure is altered in a substantial manner.


294


These gains in performance are even more striking when compared to that of the recognition practice group, who showed a significant decrease in RT as training progressed but no change in accuracy. The discrepancy in advances between the two training conditions helps support evidence that the value of the repetition-lag procedure stems from the incremented-difficulty approach to improving recollection (Jennings & Jacoby, 2003). Given both groups received an equal amount of practice with their respective tasks and were provided feedback following their responses, the main distinctions between the two conditions seems to be the need for recollection in the repetition-lag task and the gradual performance-dependent increase in delay that is the basis of the technique. In addition to the within-task improvements identified with the recollection training group, we found evidence for performance benefits on the transfer tasks. The recollection-training group demonstrated significantly greater post-training scores relative to pre-training for n-back, self-ordered pointing, source monitoring, and digit symbol substitution. This pattern of consistent enhancement on the post-training measures was not seen with the recognition practice or no contact control groups suggesting these benefits did not arise from a simple practice effect associated with repeated testing. Instead, the results suggest that the changes in processing, which led to greater performance on the repetition-lag procedure, are transferable to other tasks. One potential concern with these results though lies with the level of performance seen in the recollection group on the pre-test measures. Although there were no significant pre-training differences between the groups, the recollection training participants had slightly lower average starting scores on the 1-back, 3-back, source identification, and digit symbol tasks, raising the possibility that post-training gains may have arisen from a form of regression to the mean rather than a training effect. An equally plausible alternative is that the recollection group was weaker on those transfer measures and the repetition-lag procedure elevated performance to match or surpass the other groups. It is difficult to tease these explanations apart with the current data but the consistency of gains on the transfer measures begs the assumption that the recollection participants were having a “bad day” at pre-test to support the regression to the mean idea. This notion is not borne out by the CVLT-II data which showed equal or better pre-test performance by the recollection group relative to recognition practice. Moreover, concerns about pre-test scores do not apply to the 2-back or self-ordered pointing tasks suggesting these measures are showing robust transfer effects. The transfer effects found with n-back, self-ordered pointing, source discrimination, and digit symbol substitution are remarkable considering the paucity of evidence for successful transfer in previous work (Ball et al., 2002; Best, Hamlett, & Davis, 1992; Edwards et al., 2001; Floyd & Scogin,



295

1997; Rebok, Rasmusson & Brandt, 1996; Stigsdotter-Neely & Backman, 1993; 1995). For example, successful training in interactive imagery and the method of loci for recall of concrete nouns has been found to enhance only object recall but not recall of abstract words or subject-performed tests (Stigsdotter-Neely & Backman, 1995). Despite the fact that all three tasks can be considered near-transfer relative to the training approach, generalization seemed to be greatly limited by differences in stimuli. In contrast, our transfer effects are broader in scope encompassing working memory with letter stimuli, output monitoring with abstract shapes, and source discrimination for presentation modality. That is, the improvements found with recollection training appear to apply to near transfer measures regardless of stimuli type and for both working and long-term memory demands. The ability of the repetition-lag task to generalize to both working and long-term memory measures is interesting given the repetition-lag task seems more associated with the latter, suggesting that targeting recollection for training does not improve a memory system per se but may enhance processes that are applicable across multiple systems. It is also interesting to note that the transfer tasks showing the strongest gains are ones associated with frontal lobe functioning (e.g., Glisky, Rubin, & Davidson, 2001; Petrides & Milner, 1982; Schacter, 1987). Finding that repetition-lag generalizes to frontal tasks is consistent with other evidence that recollection relies on the prefrontal cortex (for review see Yonelinas, 2002), and identification of repeated items in the repetition-lag procedure produces frontal ERP activity (Kane, Picton, Moscovitch, & Winocur, 2000). Further, the repetition-lag task appears to have the potential to produce far transfer effects on non-frontal tasks, such as digit symbol substitution and the CVLT-II, although more work is needed to determine the exact scope of far transfer. In particular, it is difficult to know what aspects of the digit symbol task were sensitive to the training manipulation especially since the recognition practice group showed a marginal gain. It also remains to be seen whether the trends toward improvement on the CVLT-II would be reliable and significant when examined with a larger sample size. Additionally, future research needs to be conducted to address the limitations of the current study. Besides the small sample size, our participants were all well-educated, healthy, independent and active. It is thus unclear whether the within-task and transfer benefits seen with recollection training would be found with a more representative group of older adults who vary in ethnicity, health, education and socio-economic status. Of equal importance, the applicability of repetition-lag for improving memory function in everyday life, and for helping populations with strong memory deficits due to Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer’s Disease is open to question. In short, the current work touches only the tip of the iceberg with respect to resolving age-related memory changes, however we believe it

296


may offer a potentially promising approach with which to pursue such an endeavor. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This study was supported by monies from the Science Research Fund at Wake Forest University. The authors would like to thank Erika Carello and Robert Hurley for help with data collection and manuscript preparation.

REFERENCES Attneave, F., & Arnoult, M. D. The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53, 452–481. Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Smith, D. M., Tennstedt, S. L., Unverzagt, F. W., & Willis, S. L. Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002, 288, 2271–2280. Best, D.L., Hamlett, K.W., & Davis, S. W. Memory complaint and memory performance in the elderly: The effects of memory-skills training and expectancy change. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 6, 417–427. Camp, C. J., Foss, J. W., Stevens, A. B., Reichard, C. C., McKitrick, L. A., & O’Hanlon, A. M. Memory training in normal and demented elderly populations: The E-I-E-I-O Model. Experimental Aging Research, 1993, 19, 277–290. Camp, C. J., & Schaller, J. R. Epilogue: Spaced retrieval memory training in an adult daycare center. Educational Gerontology, 1989, 15, 641–648. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 450–466. Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. A. California Verbal Learning Test® Second Edition, (Ed.), Psychological Corporation: New York, 2001. Dobbs, A. R., & Rule, B. G. Adult age-differences in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 1989, 4, 500–503. Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V. G., Myers, R. S., Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., & Ball, K. K. Transfer of a speed of processing intervention to near and far cognitive functions. Gerontology, 2002, 48, 329–340. Floyd, M., & Scogin, F. Effects of memory training on the subjective memory functioning and mental health of older adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 1997, 12, 150–161. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of the patient for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1975, 12, 189–198. Foos, P. W. Effects of memory training on anxiety and performance in older adults. Educational Gerontology, 1997, 23, 243–252. Friendly, M., Franklin, P. E., Hoffman, D., & Rubin, D. C. The Toronto Word Pool: Norms for imagery, concreteness, orthographic variables, and grammatical usage for 1,080 words. Behavior Research, Methods, & Instrumentation, 1982, 14, 375–399. Glisky, E.L, Rubin, S.R, & Davidson, P.S.R. Source memory in older adults: An encoding or retrieval problem?. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory And Cognition, 2001, 27, 1131–1146. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 1979, 108, 356–388.



297

Jacoby, L. L. A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 1991, 30, 513–541. Jacoby, L. L., Jennings, J. M., & Hay, J. F. Dissociating automatic and consciously-controlled processes: Implications for diagnosis and rehabilitation of memory deficits. Basic and applied memory research: Theory in context Herrmann, D. J., McEvoy, C. L., Hertzog, C., Hertel, P., & Johnson, M. K. (Eds.), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1996, 1, 161–193. Jacoby, L. L., Toth, J. P., & Yonelinas, A. P. Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1993, 122, 139–154. Jacoby, L. L., Yonelinas, A. P., & Jennings, J. M. The relation between conscious and unconscious (automatic) influences: A declaration of independence. Scientific Approaches to the Question of Consciousness Cohen, J., & Schooler, J. W. (Eds.), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1997, 13–47. Jennings, J. M., & Jacoby, L. L. Automatic versus intentional uses of memory: Aging, attention, and control. Psychology and Aging, 1993, 8, 283–293. Jennings, J. M., & Jacoby, L. L. An opposition procedure for detecting age-related deficits in recollection: Telling effects of repetition. Psychology and Aging, 1997, 12, 352–361. Jennings, J. M., & Jacoby, L. L. Improving memory in older adults: Training recollection. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2003, 13, 417–440. Jennings, J. M., Webster, L. M., Kleykamp, B. A., & Dagenbach, D. Executive function training in older adults I: Replication and generalization of a recollection training procedure. Poster session presented at the Cognitive Aging Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2002. Jonides, J., Schumacher, E.H., Smith, E. E., Lauber, E. J., Awh, E., Minoshima, S., & Koeppe, R. A Verbal working memory load affects regional brain activation as measured by PET. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1997, 9, 462–475. Kane, K. A, Picton, T. W., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. Event-related potentials during conscious and automatic memory retrieval. Cognitive Brain Research, 2000, 10, 19–35. Kliegl, R., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. Testing-the-limits and the study of adult age differences in cognitive plasticity of a mnemonic skill. Developmental Psychology, 1989, 25, 247– 256. Kubat-Silman, A. K., Dagenbach, D., & Absher, J. R. Patterns of impaired verbal, spatial, and object working memory after thalamic lesions. Brain and Cognition, 2002, 50, 178–193. Mandler, G. Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 252–271. Mohs, R. C., Ashman, T. A., Jantzen, K., Albert, M., Brandt, J., Gordon, B., Rasmusson, X., Grossman, M., Jacobs, D., & Stern, Y. A study of the efficacy of a comprehensive memory enhancement program in healthy elderly persons. Psychiatry Research, 1998, 77, 183– 195. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., Schreiber, T. A. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Unpublished manuscript, 1989. Nystrom, L. E., Braver, T. S., Sabb, F. W., Delgado, M. R., Noll, D. C., & Cohen, J. D. Working memory for letters, shapes and locations: fMRI evidence against stimulus-based regional organization in human prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage, 2000, 11, 424–446. Petrides, M., & Milner, B. Deficits on subject-ordered tasks after frontal-lobe and temporallobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia, 1982, 20, 249–262. Rapp, S., Brenes, G., & Marsh, A. P. Memory enhancement training for older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A preliminary study. Aging and Mental Health, 2002, 6, 5–11. Rebok, G. W., Rasmusson, D. X., & Brandt, J. Prospects for computerized memory training in normal elderly: Effects of practice on explicit and implicit memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1996, 10, 211–223.


298


Robertson-Tchabo, E. A., Hausman, C. P., & Arenberg, D. A classical mnemonic for older learners: A trip that works. Educational Gerontology, 1976, 1, 215–226. Rose, T. L., & Yesavage, J. A. Differential effects of a list-learning mnemonic in three age groups. Gerontology, 1983, 29, 293–298. Rupard, M., & Dagenbach, D. Attention training and cognitive aging: Benefits from a brief intervention. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, May 2001. Schacter, D. L., Rich, S. A., & Stampp, M. S. Remediation of memory disorders: Experimental evaluation of the spaced-retrieval technique. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 1985, 7, 79–96. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 1–66. Scogin, F., & Prohaska, M. The efficacy of self-taught memory training for communitydwelling older adults. Educational Gerontology, 1992, 18, 751–766. Sohlberg, M. M., & Mateer, C. A. Effectiveness of an attention-training program. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 1987, 9, 117–130. Sohlberg, M. M., & Mateer, C.A. Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: Theory and practice , (Ed.), Guilford Press: New York, NY, 1989 . Stigsdotter-Neely, A., & Backman, L. Maintenance of gains following multifactorial and unifactorial memory training in late adulthood. Educational Gerontology, 1993, 19, 105–117. Stigsdotter-Neely, A. S., & Backman, L. Effects of multifactorial memory training in old age: Generalizability across tasks and individuals. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 1995, 50B, 134–140. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. A teacher’s word book of 30,000 words, (Ed.), New York Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1944. Troyer, A. K. Improving memory knowledge, satisfaction, and functioning via an education and intervention program for older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 2001, 8, 256–268. Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. Improving memory performance in the aged through mnemonic training: A meta-analytic study. Psychology and Aging, 1992, 7, 242–251. Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised Manual, (Ed.), Psychological Corporation: New York, 1981. Wilson, B. A. Memory rehabilitation in brain-injured people. Cognitive neurorehabilitation Stuss, D. T., Winocur, G., & Robertson, I. H. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 1999, 333–346. Wood, R.L. Attention disorders in brain injury rehabilitation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1988, 21, 327–332. Wood, L. E., & Pratt, J. D. Pegword mnemonic as an aid to memory in the elderly: A comparison of four age groups. Educational Gerontology, 1987, 13, 325–339. Yesavage, J. A. Imagery pretraining and memory training in the elderly. Gerontology, 1983, 29, 271–275. Yesavage, J. A. Relaxation and memory training in 39 elderly patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1984, 141, 778–781. Yesavage, J. A., & Rose, T. L. Concentration and mnemonic training in elderly subjects with memory complaints: A study of combined therapy and order effects. Psychiatry Research, 1983, 9, 157–167. Yesavage, J. A., Sheikh, J. I., Friedman, L., & Tanke, E. Learning mnemonics: Roles of aging and subtle cognitive impairment. Psychology and Aging, 1990, 5, 133–137. Yonelinas, A.P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 2002, 46, 441–517.

Corrigendum: Training Recollection in Healthy Older Adults: Clear Improvements on the Training Task, but Little Evidence of Transfer.

Self-referencing enhances recollection in both young and older adults.

Correlates of successful hearing aid use in older adults.

Proactive effects of memory in young and older adults: the role of change recollection.

Limited Effects of Set Shifting Training in Healthy Older Adults.

The effects of inspiratory muscle training in older adults.

Older Adults' Training Preferences for Learning to Use Technology.

Prospective memory training in older adults and its relevance for successful aging.

No evidence for true training and transfer effects after inhibitory control training in young healthy adults.

Effects of protein supplementation in older adults undergoing resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Inhibition Plasticity in Older Adults: Practice and Transfer Effects Using a Multiple Task Approach.

Repetition increases false recollection in older people.

[Effects of combined cognitive and physical training on cognition of healthy older adults: a literature review].

The Transfer of Cognitive Speed of Processing Training to Older Adults' Driving Mobility Across 5 Years.

Requirements of older adults for a daily use of an internet-based cognitive training platform.

Effects of a serious game training on cognitive functions in older adults.

Effects of computerized cognitive training on neuroimaging outcomes in older adults: a systematic review.

Training older adults on Theory of Mind (ToM): transfer on metamemory.

Effects of combined physical and cognitive training on fitness and neuropsychological outcomes in healthy older adults.

Effects of vibration training and detraining on balance and muscle strength in older adults.

TRX Suspension Training: A New Functional Training Approach for Older Adults - Development, Training Control and Feasibility.

Cognitive plasticity in older adults: effects of cognitive training and physical exercise.

Online cognitive training in healthy older adults: a preliminary study on the effects of single versus multi-domain training.

The Effects of POWER Training in Young and Older Adults after Stroke.