老年人如何纠正记忆错误?练习与元认知策略的影响。

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Nuria Montoro-Membila, María J Maraver, Alejandra Marful, Teresa Bajo
{"title":"老年人如何纠正记忆错误?练习与元认知策略的影响。","authors":"Nuria Montoro-Membila, María J Maraver, Alejandra Marful, Teresa Bajo","doi":"10.1080/13825585.2025.2464583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Older adults often exhibit a higher susceptibility to false memories compared to younger adults, partly due to age-related declines in executive functions. Mullet and Marsh (2016) demonstrated that false memory errors in younger adults, elicited through sentences with pragmatic implications, can be corrected when errors are noticed and replaced after corrective feedback. However, the effect of feedback on the correction of false memories has not yet been tested in older adults, a key question given the increased vulnerability of older adults to memory errors. To address this, we conducted two experiments comparing younger and older participants using two feedback types: simply providing the correct answer or providing the correct answer with a follow-up question prompting revision of previous responses. In Experiment 1, participants underwent pre- and post-feedback memory tests (as in Mullet & Marsh, 2016), with an additional study-recall cycle for new, non-studied material (transfer test). Experiment 2 investigated this further by adding an additional study-retrieval phase, including pre- and post-feedback tests, in order to increase training in retrieval practice and metacognitive strategies. Results indicated that both age groups improved correct recall and reduced memory errors, with older adults benefiting most from repeated practice and feedback, demonstrating a transfer of learning strategies to new material. We highlight the role of engaging in effortful memory strategies to promote better learning during adulthood and aging.</p>","PeriodicalId":7532,"journal":{"name":"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do older adults correct memory errors? The effects of practice and metacognitive strategies.\",\"authors\":\"Nuria Montoro-Membila, María J Maraver, Alejandra Marful, Teresa Bajo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13825585.2025.2464583\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Older adults often exhibit a higher susceptibility to false memories compared to younger adults, partly due to age-related declines in executive functions. Mullet and Marsh (2016) demonstrated that false memory errors in younger adults, elicited through sentences with pragmatic implications, can be corrected when errors are noticed and replaced after corrective feedback. However, the effect of feedback on the correction of false memories has not yet been tested in older adults, a key question given the increased vulnerability of older adults to memory errors. To address this, we conducted two experiments comparing younger and older participants using two feedback types: simply providing the correct answer or providing the correct answer with a follow-up question prompting revision of previous responses. In Experiment 1, participants underwent pre- and post-feedback memory tests (as in Mullet & Marsh, 2016), with an additional study-recall cycle for new, non-studied material (transfer test). Experiment 2 investigated this further by adding an additional study-retrieval phase, including pre- and post-feedback tests, in order to increase training in retrieval practice and metacognitive strategies. Results indicated that both age groups improved correct recall and reduced memory errors, with older adults benefiting most from repeated practice and feedback, demonstrating a transfer of learning strategies to new material. We highlight the role of engaging in effortful memory strategies to promote better learning during adulthood and aging.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2025.2464583\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2025.2464583","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与年轻人相比,老年人往往更容易受到错误记忆的影响,部分原因是与年龄相关的执行功能下降。Mullet和Marsh(2016)证明,年轻人通过具有语用含义的句子引发的错误记忆错误可以在错误被注意到并在纠正反馈后被替换时得到纠正。然而,反馈对错误记忆纠正的影响尚未在老年人中进行过测试,这是一个关键问题,因为老年人对记忆错误的脆弱性越来越大。为了解决这个问题,我们进行了两个实验,比较年轻和年长的参与者使用两种反馈类型:简单地提供正确的答案,或者提供正确的答案并提出一个后续问题,提示修改之前的回答。在实验1中,参与者进行了反馈前和反馈后的记忆测试(如Mullet & Marsh, 2016),并对新的、未研究过的材料进行了额外的学习-回忆周期(迁移测试)。实验2通过增加一个额外的学习-检索阶段,包括前反馈和后反馈测试,进一步研究了这一点,以增加检索练习和元认知策略的训练。结果表明,两个年龄组的人都提高了正确的回忆,减少了记忆错误,老年人从反复练习和反馈中获益最多,这表明了学习策略向新材料的转移。我们强调参与努力记忆策略的作用,以促进更好的学习在成年期和老年期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do older adults correct memory errors? The effects of practice and metacognitive strategies.

Older adults often exhibit a higher susceptibility to false memories compared to younger adults, partly due to age-related declines in executive functions. Mullet and Marsh (2016) demonstrated that false memory errors in younger adults, elicited through sentences with pragmatic implications, can be corrected when errors are noticed and replaced after corrective feedback. However, the effect of feedback on the correction of false memories has not yet been tested in older adults, a key question given the increased vulnerability of older adults to memory errors. To address this, we conducted two experiments comparing younger and older participants using two feedback types: simply providing the correct answer or providing the correct answer with a follow-up question prompting revision of previous responses. In Experiment 1, participants underwent pre- and post-feedback memory tests (as in Mullet & Marsh, 2016), with an additional study-recall cycle for new, non-studied material (transfer test). Experiment 2 investigated this further by adding an additional study-retrieval phase, including pre- and post-feedback tests, in order to increase training in retrieval practice and metacognitive strategies. Results indicated that both age groups improved correct recall and reduced memory errors, with older adults benefiting most from repeated practice and feedback, demonstrating a transfer of learning strategies to new material. We highlight the role of engaging in effortful memory strategies to promote better learning during adulthood and aging.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The purposes of Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition are to (a) publish research on both the normal and dysfunctional aspects of cognitive development in adulthood and aging, and (b) promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings between the fields of cognitive gerontology and neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of the journal is to publish original empirical research. Occasionally, theoretical or methodological papers, critical reviews of a content area, or theoretically relevant case studies will also be published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信