Intact strategic retrieval processes in older adults: no evidence for age-related deficits in source-constrained retrieval

ABSTRACT

Aging is thought to involve impairments to cognitive control functions that support episodic memory, for example by enabling people to strategically constrain their retrieval search towards a specific context (“source”) in order to facilitate retrieval of goal-relevant memories. The “memory-for-foils” paradigm investigates source-constrained retrieval by assessing whether incidental encoding of new foils during an old/new recognition test differs depending on the type of processing that was previously used during study of the old items in the test. If it does, it suggests that people process foils differently as a result of engaging in source-constrained retrieval attempts. Young adults typically show differences in incidental encoding foils, but such differences have not been found in older adults. Here, we compared source-constrained retrieval and reward effects on incidental foil encoding between younger and older adults, to assess if age-related reductions in strategic retrieval processing are accompanied by differences in responsiveness to external rewards. The results showed only minor effects of rewards on memory processing, in younger adults only. Contrary to prior findings, older adults had equivalent overall memory performance and spontaneously constrained retrieval to the same extent as the young group, showing that aging-related impairments to strategic retrieval processes are not inevitable.

KEYWORDS:

• Aging
• recognition
• strategic retrieval
• memory-for-foils
• external rewards

Acknowledgements

The research was conducted in collaboration with the University of the Third Age (U3A) Canterbury Branch research group, which consisted of Rona Hodges, Jennifer Harrop, Diane Billam, Jacky Moore, Karen Evans, Lynda Bonard. We thank Tara Lalani and Jen Huynh Nguyen for help with data collection. We have no conflict of interest to declare.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The MoCA threshold of ≥25 was used instead of the standard 26, in order to be less conservative with regards to inclusions. Since the main results showed a lack of memory difference between the age groups, we did not want to restrict group differences by being overly conservative. For the record, all key conclusions from analyses were the same when a MoCA cut off of ≥26 was used.

Additional information

Funding

This research was part funded by a Public Engagement with Research Grant from the University of Kent, and part funded by a small grant from the Experimental Psychology Society.