↓ Skip to main content

Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model
Published in
Memory & Cognition, June 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13421-018-0837-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J. Huff, Andrew J. Aschenbrenner

Abstract

Our study examined processing effects in improving memory accuracy in older and younger adults. Specifically, we evaluated the effectiveness of item-specific and relational processing instructions relative to a read-only control task on correct and false recognition in younger and older adults using a categorized-list paradigm. In both age groups, item-specific and relational processing improved correct recognition versus a read-only control task, and item-specific encoding decreased false recognition relative to both the relational and read-only groups. This pattern was found in older adults despite overall elevated rates of false recognition. We then applied signal-detection and diffusion-modeling analyses, which separately utilized recognition responses and the latencies to those responses to estimate contributions of encoding and monitoring processes on recognition decisions. Converging evidence from both analyses demonstrated that item-specific processing benefits to memory accuracy were due to improvements of both encoding (estimates of d' and drift rate) and monitoring (estimates of lambda and boundary separation) processes, and, importantly, occurred similarly in both younger and older adults. Thus, older and younger adults showed similar encoding-based and test-based benefits of item-specific processing to enhance memory accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 52%
Neuroscience 5 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,258,829
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#831
of 1,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,441
of 346,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.