Recalling the firedog: Individual differences in associative memory for unitized and nonunitized associations among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory deficits in aging are characterized by impaired hippocampus-mediated relational binding-the formation of links between items in memory. By reducing reliance on relational binding, unitization of two items into one concept enhances associative recognition among older adults. Can a similar enhancement be obtained when probing memory with recall? This question has yet to be examined, because recall has been assumed to rely predominantly on relational binding. Inspired by recent evidence challenging this assumption, we investigated individual differences in older adults' recall of unitized and nonunitized associations. Compared with successfully aging individuals, older adults with mild memory deficits, typically mediated by the hippocampus, were impaired in recall of paired-associates in a task which relies on relational binding (study: "PLAY-TUNNEL"; test: PLAY-T?). In stark contrast, the two groups showed similar performance when items were unitized into a novel compound word (study: "LOVEGIGGLE"; test: LOVEG?). Thus, boosting nonrelational aspects of recall enhances associative memory among aging individuals with subtle memory impairments to comparable levels as successfully aging older 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".