9352852248 Call Girls Gota Escort Service Available 24×7 In Gota
Presentation autobiographical memory
1. Aging and Autobiographical Memory: Dissociating
Episodic From Semantic Retrieval
by
Levine, Svoboda, Hay, Winocur & Moscovitch (2004)
N A I M A N I G A R
M S S T U D E N T
D E P T . O F P S Y C H O L O G Y
U N I V E R S I T Y O F D H A K A
1
2. What am I going to Present?
• Defining Key Variables
• Relevant Studies
• Rationale
• Research questions
• Hypotheses
• Purpose
• Method & data analysis
• Results
• Discussion
• Evaluation
2
7. Relevant Studies
• Older adults’ recollections of manufactured real life events
contain more elaborative statements related to personal
thoughts or feelings than do those of younger adults
(Hashtroudi et al., 1990).
7
Cont.
10. 10
It was the first study-
• Episodic and non-episodic processing
• Manipulate retrieval support, and
• Analyze retention-interval effects in younger
and older adults.
11. Research Questions
Does aging cause difference in retrieval of
episodic from semantic autobiographical
memory?
Does manipulation of retrieval support enhance
recalling?
11
12. Hypotheses
Aging negatively affects episodic memory, whereas
semantic memory is preserved or even facilitated
among older adults.
Manipulation of retrieval support for specific memory
will enhance recalling.
12
13. Purpose
Address these hypotheses directly by using
a new measure: the Autobiographical
Interview.
13
15. Stimuli
Events from five life
periods.
Procedure
Participants were asked to
choose events from five
life periods.
Three retrieval support
was manipulated :
a) Recall
b) General probe and
c) Specific probe.
Figure 1. Five life periods
15
Method Cont.
16.
Cont.
Recall.
Free recall without any interruption from the examiner.
General probe.
Used to clarify instructions and to encourage greater
recall of details.
Specific probe.
A structured interview, adapted from the Memory
Characteristics Questionnaire (Johnson et al.,1988).
16
Method
17. Cont.
Scoring and Data Analysis
A standardized, manual-based procedure was used for
scoring.
• Quantitative scores: Text segmentation and their
categorization.
• Qualitative scores: Ratings assigned to the various
categories.
17
18. Cont.
Text Segmentation and Categorization
Each memory was segmented into informational bits
or details. There were two broad groups of details:
1.Internal and
2.External
Rating Assignment
• 0-3 point scale was used to measure qualitative re-
experiencing.
18
21. Results
Reliability and Validity of the Instrument
21
Figure 3. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Internal and
external event.
22. Cont.
Agreement on ratings composites was:
0.79 for Recall &
For specific probe (0.41).
Agreement for individual categories range from (0.60-0.90).
Scale validity: significant correlations between the AMI
and the Autobiographical Interview detail and rating
composite (.65 and .68) which indicates construct validity of
the scale.
22
23. Older adults produced fewer internal details and more
external details than younger adults.
Older adults consistently produced more factual details
relating to semantic knowledge.
There was a significant effect of specific probing of period
5 on the internal details for older adults.
23
24. THE EFFECTS OF AGE GROUP AND RETRIEVAL SUPPORT ON COMPOSITE MEASURES
OF AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL RECALL
Figure 4. Mean number of internal and external details given per event during recall (left)
and after specific probing (right) for all five life periods (top) and for period 5 alone
(bottom).
24
26. The Effects of Life Period (Retention Interval) on Autobiographical Recall for
OlderAdults
Figure 6. Mean number of internal details retrieved by older adults
across five life periods for recall and after specific probing.
26
27. Discussion
Younger adults:
Episodic details >Semantic details
Older adults:
Semantic details>Episodic details
This finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., McIntyre &
Craik, 1987; Spencer & Raz, 1995; Zacks et al., 2000) where they
found age-related deficiency for episodic information.
Whereas semantic information is preserved or even facilitated in
older adults (e.g., Adams et al., 1997).
27
28. CONT.
• Highly effective
• 100% increase in details and
raising ratings
Manipulation of
probing
• No age effect for internal details.
• Reduce age differences in
episodic richness for internal
details.
Controlled
retention
interval
28
29. Cont.
Contrary to expectations from prior research (Craik, 1983;
Craik & McDowd, 1987).
Manipulation
of retrieval
support
Age
differences
Episodic
reexperiencing
29
30. Cont.
This manipulation was not sufficient to reduce differences
in episodic richness as assessed by the ratings. Further
research is needed to exclude this short-coming.
30
31. AI can be used to differentiate patients truly
amnesic for remote personal information from those
with inefficient retrieval operations who are not
amnesic.
Eyewitness testimony.
In Campbell et al., (2002):
Episodic recall is substantially increased by
probing in patients with self-initiated retrieval
deficits due to focal frontal lesions.
31
33. Conclusion
The Autobiographical Interview provides reliable and
valid directories of episodic and semantic
contributions to personal remote memory.
Retrieval support did not differentially affect older
adults’ recollections. Although it did reduce age
differences when retention interval was controlled.
33
storage (and retrieval) of specific events or episodes occurring in a particular place at a particular time.in conscious recollection of prior episode or state retrieval of episodic memory poses special kind of awareness which described as autonoetic or self-knowing (Wheeler, Stuss, and Tulving, 1997).
in which one thinks objectively about something one knows general knowledge about the world and ourselves and does not entail re-experiencing past events.retrieval does not possess the sense of conscious recollection of the past. It involves instead noetic or knowing awareness. (Wheeler et al, 1997)
Age-related decline is greatest for explicit, effortful, and unstructured retrieval tasks (Zacks, Hasher & Li, 2000).
Age effects are reduced or eliminated for general semantic knowledge, implicit, or habitually acquired information (Hay & Jacoby, 1999), emotional material (Carstensen & Turk Charles, 1994), or when retrieval support (i.e., cuing or recognition) is provided (Craik, 1983; Craik & McDowd, 1987).
It is the first study of autobiographical memory retrieval to examine indices of episodic and non-episodic processing (including specific content areas), to manipulate retrieval support, and to analyze retention-interval effects in younger and older adults.
Retention Interval: The period between a learning experience and its recall.
and designed to elicit additional details that were not spontaneously recalled.
For instance, “I dropped my sandwich in Portland last Wednesday” contains three details: an event (dropping the sandwich), a location (Portland), and a time (last Wednesday).
was assessed with intraclass correlation (one-way random effects model; McGraw & Wong, 1996), which
Agreement on ratings composites was: high for recall (0.79) but not for specific probe (0.41).
In this study, younger adults produced more episodic details than did older adults in autobiographical recall, whereas production of semantic details was unimpaired or enhanced in older adults.
In Svoboda et al. (2002) ongoing research with the Autobiographical Interview it was found that episodic recall is substantially increased by probing in patients with self-initiated retrieval deficits due to focal frontal lesions.
