Diminished But Not Forgotten: Effects of Aging on Magnitude of Spacing Effect Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Age-related changes in memory performance are common in paired associate episodic memory tasks, although the deficit can be ameliorated with distributed practice. Benefits of learning episode spacing in older adults have been shown in single-session studies with spaced presentations of items followed by a test. This study examined the magnitude of the spacing effect benefit in older adults relative to younger adults when given a multiday spacing effect paradigm. METHOD: We examined the impact of spacing gap (~15min vs. 24hr) in younger (N = 51, Mage = 19 years, SD = 0.6) and older (N = 54, Mage = 65 years, SD = 8.8) adults with a 10-day retention interval. RESULTS: Spacing of learning episodes benefited both younger and older adults. There was an age-related difference in the magnitude of this benefit that has not been observed in earlier studies. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that spacing benefited the long-term memory of older adults, however the effect was diminished and qualitatively different from that of younger adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".