The Impact of Memory Change on Everyday Life Among Older Adults: Association with Cognition and Self-Reported Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many older adults experience memory changes that can have a meaningful impact on their everyday lives, such as restrictions to lifestyle activities and negative emotions. Older adults also report a variety of positive coping responses that help them manage these changes. The purpose of this study was to determine how objective cognitive performance and self-reported memory are related to the everyday impact of memory change. METHODS: We examined these associations in a sample of 94 older adults (age 60-89, 52% female) along a cognitive ability continuum from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Correlational analyses revealed that greater restrictions to lifestyle activities (|rs| = .36-.66), more negative emotion associated with memory change (|rs| = .27-.76), and an overall greater burden of memory change on everyday living (|rs| = .28-.61) were associated with poorer objective memory performance and lower self-reported memory ability and satisfaction. Performance on objective measures of executive attention was unrelated to the impact of memory change. Self-reported strategy use was positively related to positive coping with memory change (|r| = .26), but self-reported strategy use was associated with more negative emotions regarding memory change (|r| = .23). CONCLUSIONS: Given the prevalence of memory complaints among older adults, it is important to understand the experience of memory change and its impact on everyday functioning in order to develop services that target the specific needs of this population.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".