Aging and directed forgetting: Evidence for an associative deficit but no evidence for an inhibition deficit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intentional forgetting aims to prevent unwanted information from being stored in long-term memory. Surprisingly, past research has shown that, relative to younger adults, older adults recall and recognize more to-be-forgotten information. It has been suggested that this occurs because older adults have a deficient ability to inhibit information. In two experiments, we examined memory differences between older and younger adults in an item-method directed forgetting task. Participants viewed words one at a time during a study phase, each followed by a cue to remember (R) or to forget (F). In Experiment 1, participants' later recognition of both types of items was assessed, followed by a separate source discrimination test for the cue that had been associated with each word at study. In Experiment 2, memory was assessed using a three-response recognition test, indicating whether each word was either new or previously studied and, if previously studied, whether it was associated with an R cue or an F cue. In both experiments, older and younger adults recognized more to-be-remembered items than to-be-forgotten items, the typical directed forgetting effect (DFE). Contrary to past reports, older adults did not remember more to-be-forgotten items than did younger adults, inconsistent with an inhibitory deficit. Older adults were, however, less accurate than younger adults in identifying cue associations for both R and F items, consistent instead with an associative memory deficit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".