老年人情景记忆更新的改变：竞争记忆的回溯性干扰

记忆更新是获取新知识的一种重要能力。大量研究显示老年人情景记忆受损,但鲜有研究探讨老年人情景记忆更新模式的改变。研究在匹配了老年人和年轻人编码程度的前提下,探讨情景记忆更新的老化效应及其潜在的认知机制。我们对AB-AC记忆更新范式进行了创新,同时考察了在项目改变和位置改变条件下的老化效应,并在测试阶段纳入诱饵选项,进一步排除编码程度带来的影响。研究结果显示年轻人能对A-B和A-C记忆分离存储,而老年人更多地受到回溯性记忆干扰,即在A-B测试中出现C的闯入,并且该干扰效应显著地大于诱饵刺激带来的影响。研究结果表明,在年轻人和老年人编码程度匹配的情况下,年轻人的记忆更新通过记忆分化来实现,而老年人更多地受到竞争记忆的回溯性干扰。     

日常前瞻记忆的年龄差异

在年龄—前瞻记忆悖论现象中,老年人在完成日常前瞻记忆任务时,其表现优于年轻人的现象尤其引人注意。研究者一方面探讨了动机水平、责任心、生活状态以及外部帮助与提示等与主体有关的因素等对这一结果的影响;另一方面也研究了任务本身因素的影响,根据不同任务情境和任务性质的前瞻记忆年龄比较的结果,可以推断日常前瞻记忆年龄差异的来源在于任务的性质而非任务的情境。将来的研究可通过元分析、中介效应检验等手段进一步确定日常前瞻记忆年龄差异的机制。     

DRM范式中错误记忆的年龄差异及其机制

研究旨在考察老年人错误记忆现象及内在原因,并检验模糊痕迹理论对错误记忆年老化机制的解释。以经典DRM范式为研究起点,对三组被试（年轻人35名、低龄老人28名、高龄老人34名）的记忆成绩进行比较,利用联合再认范式及多项式树型建模的统计手段,分别从现象学和认知加工机制的角度检验错误记忆的年龄差异是否符合模糊痕迹理论的预期。结果发现:（1）正确记忆与错误记忆均存在显著的年龄差异,而这两种记忆在不同年龄阶段的老年人中呈现出不同的增龄效应模式：正确记忆随年龄的增长呈不断下降的趋势,而错误记忆水平呈现倒U型发展趋势,即低龄老年组的虚报率显著高于年轻组和高龄老年组;（2）虚报率的年龄差异主要集中在未学习过但与学习词列有强语义相关的刺激（类型记为R）反应上。对R型刺激的反应模式进行分析发现,低龄老年人相比年轻人成功提取字面痕迹的概率存在显著下降,而提取要点痕迹的概率保持相对稳定;高龄老年人成功提取要点痕迹的概率相比低龄老年人显著下降。本研究的结果支持了模糊痕迹理论对个体记忆一般年老化特点的预期及解释。     

Victim Blaming in Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults: Variations on the Severity Effect

It has been long known that people blame victims for the bad things that happen to them, and that people blame victims more when the victims experience severe difficulties than when they experience minor difficulties, even if the victims were not particularly irresponsible. Little previous research has examined victim blaming in middle-age and older adults. One hundred and forty-five adults in 3 age groups (18–34, 35–59, and 60–84) read 4 scenarios (2 accidents, 1 crime, and 1 fire) imbedded in other scenarios. The scenarios were varied so that the victim is either very irresponsible or not very irresponsible, and the outcome is mild or severe. The oldest group of participants blamed the victims more than the other groups. However, in contrast to the typical severity effect, the oldest group blamed the very irresponsible victim more when the outcome was mild than they did when the outcome was severe.     

工作记忆容量和加工速度在归纳推理能力老化中的作用

利用结构方程模型考察了工作记忆容量和加工速度在归纳推理老化中的作用。样本为217名社区老人。结果发现：(1)工作记忆容量在归纳推理老化中具有重要作用．语音环路和视空问初步加工系统在推理过程巾参与程度相当。(2)在年龄和归纳推理能力之问存在年龄——加工速度——工作记忆容量——归纳推理这样一条层级关系。年龄、加工速度和工作记忆容量共同解释归纳推理中57％的变异。     

预期式时距估计年龄差异的初步研究

以5s、13s和26s为目标时距,采用产生法和复制法,探讨了预期式条件下时距估计的年龄差异。结果表明在单任务作业中。年老被试和年轻被试两个年龄组之间估计时距的平均值没有显著差异,但年老被试比年轻被试的估计时距具有更大的变异性。单一的内部时钟频率变化的假设并不能对单任务条件下时距估计的年龄差异做出合理的解释。时距估计的年龄差异可能是内部时钟频率变化和认知过程变化交互作用的结果。     

青老年组不同难度下心算活动的脑功能磁共振成像研究

应用功能磁共振成像技术研究不同心算难度下脑区的活动以及年龄的影响。14名志愿者（20～29岁青年和60～69岁老年被试各7名）参加了该实验。实验任务为2个难度水平的连续减法心算,分别为1000—3和1000—17。结果表明：（1）心算加工激活了额叶和顶叶的许多脑区;（2）大脑左半球是心算加工的优势半球,但随着心算难度加大,大脑一侧化程度下降,而年老加剧了这一趋势;（3）青年组进行简单心算（1000—3）时,额中回未见明显激活,而老年组进行简单心算时,该脑区被明显激活。总体上,额叶和顶叶在心算活动中起着重要作用,而任务难度和年龄对心算加工时脑活动的影响以额中回区最为明显。     

Situation selection across adulthood: the role of arousal

In this study, we investigated age differences in situation selection to understand the role stimulus arousal plays in motivating age differences in this type of emotion regulation. Participants freely selected from a set of affective videos using information about the valence and arousal of each stimulus. There were age differences both in the valence and arousal of selected stimuli. Older adults selected more neutral and low-arousal stimuli while younger adults selected more negative and high-arousal stimuli. We consider these results in light of recent theoretical models and conclude that studies of age differences in emotion regulation must consider both valence and arousal.     

Visual feature binding in younger and older adults: encoding and suffix interference effects

Three experiments investigated younger (18–25 yrs) and older (70–88 yrs) adults’ temporary memory for colour–shape combinations (binding). We focused upon estimating the magnitude of the binding cost for each age group across encoding time (Experiment 1; 900/1500?ms), presentation format (Experiment 2; simultaneous/sequential), and interference (Experiment 3; control/suffix) conditions. In Experiment 1, encoding time did not differentially influence binding in the two age groups. In Experiment 2, younger adults exhibited poorer binding performance with sequential relative to simultaneous presentation, and serial position analyses highlighted a particular age-related difficulty remembering the middle item of a series (for all memory conditions). Experiments 1–3 demonstrated small to medium binding effect sizes in older adults across all encoding conditions, with binding less accurate than shape memory. However, younger adults also displayed negative effects of binding (small to large) in two of the experiments. Even when older adults exhibited a greater suffix interference effect in Experiment 3, this was for all memory types, not just binding. We therefore conclude that there is no consistent evidence for a visual binding deficit in healthy older adults. This relative preservation contrasts with the specific and substantial deficits in visual feature binding found in several recent studies of Alzheimer's disease.