Age differences in the focus of retrieval: Evidence from dual-list free recall

Abstract

In the present experiment, we examined age differences in the focus of retrieval using a dual-list free recall paradigm. Younger and older adults studied 2 lists of unrelated words and recalled from the first list, the second list, or both lists. Older adults showed impaired use of control processes to recall items correctly from a target list and prevent intrusions. This pattern reflected a deficit in recollection verified using a process dissociation procedure. We examined the consequences of an age-related deficit in control processes on the focus of retrieval using measures of temporal organization. Evidence that older adults engaged a broader focus of retrieval than younger adults was shown clearly when participants were instructed to recall from both lists. First-recalled items originated from more distant positions across lists for older adults. We interpret older adults' broader retrieval orientation as consistent with their impaired ability to elaborate cues to constrain retrieval. These findings show that age-related deficits in control processes impair context reinstatement and the subsequent focus of retrieval to target episodes.

Figure 1

Process estimates for recollection and automaticity as a function of age. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 2

Probability of first recall curves for younger and older adults in the List Both condition (top panels), the List 1 and List 2 conditions (bottom left panels), and the List C1 and List C2 conditions (bottom right panels). Data were averaged across three adjacent positions within each list for all positions except the first and last. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals calculated using a bootstrapping procedure.

Figure 3

Serial position curves for younger and older adults in the List 1 conditions (top panel) and List 2 conditions (bottom panel). Data were averaged across three adjacent positions for all positions except the first and last. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals calculated using a bootstrapping procedure.

Figure 4

Output profiles for younger adults (left) and older adults (right) in the List 1 condition (top panel), List 2 condition (middle panel), and List Both condition (bottom panel). Mean probabilities of producing a response from each list are plotted as a function of output position during the recall period. Intrusions refer to intra-trial intrusions from the list opposite the target list. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 5

Conditional response probabilities as a function of lag and trial type for younger adults (left panel) and older adults (right panel). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.