MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527937988

Do Older and Younger Adults Use and Benefit from Memory Aids

2012· dissertation· en· W2527937988 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsGerontologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines age differences in the use and value of memory compensation strategies for everyday memory tasks. Chapter 1 reviews the literature on memory compensation and aging. According to Selective Optimization with Compensation (SOC) model, older adults may be more likely than younger adults to take advantage of memory compensation strategies when they are available. Chapter 2 describes a diary study in which older and younger participants rated the extent to which they use compensation strategies in everyday life and reported everyday memory errors over the course of a week. Older adults reported fewer memory errors than younger adults and more use of memory aids. However, use of memory aids was unrelated to frequency of memory errors in either age group. Chapter 3 reports a laboratory experiment on the use of memory aids for recalling phone messages. Participants listened to phone messages while simultaneously completing a seating chart, and were asked to report the content of the messages to the experimenter. Participants were either allowed to use a memory aid for the phone message task, or not. Older participants reported using compensation strategies more frequently in everyday life, but they were no more likely than younger participants to search for or employ an aid in the phone message task. Using a memory aid was differentially beneficial, improving performance more for older than younger participants. In Chapter 4, participants completed two phone message recall and two seating plan tasks. Participants were encouraged to use whatever in the room that they might find helpful. On one round of tasks a pen was tied to a clipboard and participants could use it to write down the phone messages. On the other round no pen was available. The order of the trials was counterbalanced across participants. This design examined the calibration between participants’ use of memory aids and their performance on the recall task – whether participants’ performance on the first trial predicted their subsequent use of memory aids, and whether participants who chose to use a memory aid when it was available on the first trial performed particularly poorly on the second trial when no aid was present. As in Study 1, older adults reported using memory aids more frequently in everyday life but age was unassociated with whether or not participants used the pen when one was available. There was little evidence of calibration. Participants’ memory performance on an initial trial had little impact on their use of a memory aid on a subsequent trial. Participants who used a memory aid on the first trial actually recalled more phone message details on the second trial (without the aid) than those who did not. This was true for both age groups. Chapter 5 reflects on older and younger adults self-reported and observed uses of memory compensation strategies. Across all 3 studies older adults reported using external memory aids more frequently in everyday life. However, contrary to the SOC model, in Studies 2 and 3 there were no age differences in older and younger adults’ use of a pen to write down phone messages on the lab task. Nor was participants’ choice to use the memory aid associated with their unaided performance on the task. These results do not support the prediction derived from SOC that older adults use compensation strategies more frequently or more sensitively than younger adults. However, using the memory did improve performance on the task more for older than for younger adults. These results support the hypothesis that external memory aids are a particularly valuable strategy for older adults and suggest the need to better understand why some individuals engage in compensation use and others do not.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it