Type of encoded material and age modulate the relationship between episodic recall of visual perspective and autobiographical memory

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic of events in the recognition test for Experiment 1. (A) Demonstrates what was on the screen and for how long the participants saw this information. Note that although these are photographs of the scenes in this part of the test, in the encoding session these items were placed onto this grid ‘live’ in front of the participants. The ‘sport equipment’ image seen here represents the ‘Identical' condition. That is, this was exactly what was shown during encoding. (B) These images show the two possible non-identical lure trials. The top is the example of an ‘Item Shift’ trial and the bottom of the ‘Perspective Shift’ [To view this figure in color, please see the online version of this journal].

Table 1. 3D episodic task data (standard deviations in brackets) for Experiment 1.

Group	Question	Hit rate	False alarm	d’ value
Younger adults	1	.96 (.23)	.07 (.19)	3.75 (.91)
Older adults		.91 (.08)	.34 (.39)	2.20 (1.82)
Younger adults	2	.88 (.10)	.14 (.15)	2.71 (.94)
Older adults		.75 (.15)	.50 (.32)	.68 (1.26)

Table 2. Data from autobiographical interview in Experiment 1.

Group		Time 1	Time 2	Time 3
Younger adults	Self-Rate	2.66 (.78)	3.16 (.54)	3.60 (.48)
	Episodic Score	3.15 (.57)	3.14 (.51)	3.41 (.45)
Older adults	Self-Rate	2.97 (.74)	3.40 (.68)	3.57 (.53)
	Episodic Score	2.80 (.67)	2.73 (.62)	3.14 (.44)

Note: Standard deviations are shown in brackets.

Figure 2. Individual participant responses in each time period and each age group in Experiment 1. Each circle represents one participant. Data were coded with the mode value; ‘Own Eyes’ if in all or most of the 3 memories within a time period a participant provided an ‘Own-Eyes’ response, whereas they were coded as ‘Observer’ if in all or most of the 3 memories within a time period the participant provided an ‘Observer’ response [To view this figure in color, please see the online version of this journal].

Figure 3. Scatterplot comparing Younger Adults’ and Older Adults’ composite episodic score in the autobiographical interview (x axis) with discrimination ability for own versus a shifted perspective - d’ discrimination for Question 2 in the 3-D task (y axis) in Experiment 1. The shaded areas around each regression line represent the 95% CIs [To view this figure in color, please see the online version of this journal].

Table 3. Computer displayed 2D episodic task data (standard deviations in brackets) for Experiment 2.

Group	Condition	Hit rate	False alarm	d’ value
Younger adults	Perspective shift	.78 (.13)	.28 (.18)	1.50 (.77)
Older adults		.78 (.14)	.39 (.22)	1.19 (.79)
Younger adults	Item shift	.78 (.13)	.25 (.18)	1.57 (.66)
Older adults		.78 (.14)	.31 (.18)	1.43 (.76)

Table 4. Data from autobiographical interview in Experiment 2.

Group		Time 1	Time 2	Time 3
Younger adults	Self-Rate	2.83 (.70)	3.30 (.68)	3.65 (.77)
	Episodic Score	2.78 (.54)	2.43 (.63)	2.51 (.62)
Older adults	Self-Rate	2.96 (.73)	3.44 (.63)	3.74 (.35)
	Episodic Score	2.44 (.68)	2.13 (.59)	2.57 (.47)

Note: Standard deviations are shown in brackets.

Figure 4. Individual participant responses in each time period and each age group in Experiment 2. Each circle represents one participant. Data were coded with the mode value; ‘Own Eyes’ if in all or most of the 3 memories within a time period a participant provided an ‘Own-Eyes’ response, whereas they were coded as ‘Observer’ if in all or most of the 3 memories within a time period the participant provided an ‘Observer’ response [To view this figure in color, please see the online version of this journal].