Improving associative memory in older adults with unitization

Abstract

We examined if unitization inherent preexperimentally could reduce the associative deficit in older adults. In Experiment 1, younger and older adults studied compound word (CW; e.g., store keeper) and noncompound word (NCW; e.g., needle birth) pairs. We found a reduction in the age-related associative deficit such that older but not younger adults showed a discrimination advantage for CW relative to NCW pairs on a yes–no associative recognition test. These results suggest that CW compared to NCW word pairs provide schematic support that older adults can use to improve their memory. In Experiment 2, reducing study time in younger adults decreased associative recognition performance, but did not produce a discrimination advantage for CW pairs. In Experiment 3, both older and younger adults showed a discrimination advantage for CW pairs on a two-alternative forced-choice recognition test, which encourages greater use of familiarity. These results suggest that test format influenced young adults’ use of familiarity during associative recognition of unitized pairs, and that older adults rely more on familiarity than recollection for associative recognition. Unitization of preexperimental associations, as in CW pairs, can alleviate age-related associative deficits.

Keywords:

• associative recognition
• age-related associative deficit
• schematic support
• unitization
• familiarity
• compound word pairs
• two-alternative forced-choice test

Notes

1. Mean confidence was significantly higher for hits (M = 2.07) compared to correct rejections (M = 2.07) and did not reliably differ between CW and NCW pairs. Because confidence judgments cannot be compared between young and older adults, they are not considered further.

2. According to signal detection theory, the two-alternative forced-choice procedure produces a performance advantage over the yes–no procedure of approximately √2. Thus, it has been proposed to divide the forced-choice d′ score by √2 to compensate for this advantage (Hacker & Ratcliff, 1979; Macmillan & Creelman, 1991).