An Electrophysiological Study of Aging and Perceptual Letter-Matching.

Background: Previous studies on perceptual letter-matching have found that younger and older adults showed "fast-same" effects for response time and "false-different" effects for errors but the effects were more pronounced for older adults. According to the Noisy Operator Theory, internal noise in visual processing distorts "same" trials into appearing different whereas distortion for "different" trials does not affect performance. Older adults have a "noisier" representation of items within perceptual processing which can impact perceptual matching. However, EEG measures may provide a more direct measure of letter-matching decisions. Methods: We measured the P300 event-related potential (ERP) amplitude, an index of familiarity in stimulus categorization, and behavioral measures (response time and accuracy) to assess letter-matching performance. Results: Individuals responded faster to "same" trials than to "different" trials but were less accurate. Older adults showed similar P300 amplitudes across trial type whereas younger adults produced a larger amplitude for "same" than "different" trials, suggesting that older adults showed less familiarity for "same" trials than did younger adults - a prediction of the Noisy Operator Theory. Conclusions: These ERP results are consistent with the Noisy Operator Theory - suggesting that an age-related increase in internal noise affected letter-matching performance.

Are There Age Differences in Consolidated Episodic Memory?

Background/Study Context: While most aging research on memory uses a retention interval of one hour or less, episodic consolidation takes longer (e.g., 6-24 hours for synaptic consolidation). In three experiments, we examined age differences in recall followed by recognition in which the retention interval was varied in younger and older adults. METHODS: In Experiment 1 (n = 24 for both age groups), zero-, 1- and 24-hour retention intervals were used for recall for all participants, and a 24-hour retention interval was used for recognition. In Experiment 2 (n = 24 for both age groups), just a 24-hour retention interval was used. In Experiment 3 (n = 20 for both age groups), a within-subjects design was used in which participants recalled one word list after one hour and again after 24 hours, and recalled another word list just after 24 hours (with recognition for both conditions after the 24-hour recall). RESULTS: In Experiment 1, older adults recalled fewer words at both the 1- and 24-hour retention intervals, but the magnitude of the age difference did not differ. In Experiment 2 (just 24-hour retention interval), there were no age differences in recall. In Experiment 3, in the two-recall condition, older adults showed lower recall at both 1-hour and 24-hour retention intervals (but the magnitude of the age difference remained constant across retention interval). In the single-recall just 24-hour retention condition, there were no age differences. There were no age differences in recognition in any of the three experiments. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that recall declines for a 24-hour retention interval relative to a zero or one-hour retention interval (Experiments 1 and 3) for both age groups. However, when the first recall attempt occurs after a 24-hour retention interval, there are no age differences. These replicated results suggest that older adults do not benefit as much as younger adults from pre-consolidated rehearsal, but that rehearsal-based age differences do not increase in magnitude from the last rehearsal to memory consolidation. Furthermore, (along with), the present results indicate that there are no age differences in recall when the first recall attempt occurs after a long retention interval - when memory consolidation is likely to have occurred before the first retrieval attempt.

The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data.