storage (and retrieval) of specific events or episodes occurring in a particular place at a particular time.in conscious recollection of prior episode or state retrieval of episodic memory poses special kind of awareness which described as autonoetic or self-knowing (Wheeler, Stuss, and Tulving, 1997).
in which one thinks objectively about something one knows general knowledge about the world and ourselves and does not entail re-experiencing past events.retrieval does not possess the sense of conscious recollection of the past. It involves instead noetic or knowing awareness. (Wheeler et al, 1997)
Age-related decline is greatest for explicit, effortful, and unstructured retrieval tasks (Zacks, Hasher & Li, 2000).
Age effects are reduced or eliminated for general semantic knowledge, implicit, or habitually acquired information (Hay & Jacoby, 1999), emotional material (Carstensen & Turk Charles, 1994), or when retrieval support (i.e., cuing or recognition) is provided (Craik, 1983; Craik & McDowd, 1987).
It is the first study of autobiographical memory retrieval to examine indices of episodic and non-episodic processing (including specific content areas), to manipulate retrieval support, and to analyze retention-interval effects in younger and older adults.
Retention Interval: The period between a learning experience and its recall.
and designed to elicit additional details that were not spontaneously recalled.
For instance, “I dropped my sandwich in Portland last Wednesday” contains three details: an event (dropping the sandwich), a location (Portland), and a time (last Wednesday).
was assessed with intraclass correlation (one-way random effects model; McGraw & Wong, 1996), which
Agreement on ratings composites was: high for recall (0.79) but not for specific probe (0.41).
In this study, younger adults produced more episodic details than did older adults in autobiographical recall, whereas production of semantic details was unimpaired or enhanced in older adults.
In Svoboda et al. (2002) ongoing research with the Autobiographical Interview it was found that episodic recall is substantially increased by probing in patients with self-initiated retrieval deficits due to focal frontal lesions.
Presentation autobiographical memory
Aging and Autobiographical Memory: DissociatingEpisodic From Semantic RetrievalbyLevine, Svoboda, Hay, Winocur & Moscovitch (2004)N A I M A N I G A RM S S T U D E N TD E P T . O F P S Y C H O L O G YU N I V E R S I T Y O F D H A K A1
What am I going to Present?• Defining Key Variables• Relevant Studies• Rationale• Research questions• Hypotheses• Purpose• Method & data analysis• Results• Discussion• Evaluation2
Key VariablesAutobiographical memory is memory for the events ofone’s life. (Conway and Rubin, 1993)3
Relevant Studies• Older adults’ recollections of manufactured real life eventscontain more elaborative statements related to personalthoughts or feelings than do those of younger adults(Hashtroudi et al., 1990).7Cont.
9ImplicitSemanticknowledgeEmotionalmaterialRetrievalsupport(Craik & McDowd, 1987; Carstensen & Turk Charles,1994; Hay & Jacoby, 1999)Relevant StudiesCont.
10It was the first study-• Episodic and non-episodic processing• Manipulate retrieval support, and• Analyze retention-interval effects in youngerand older adults.
Research Questions Does aging cause difference in retrieval ofepisodic from semantic autobiographicalmemory? Does manipulation of retrieval support enhancerecalling?11
Hypotheses Aging negatively affects episodic memory, whereassemantic memory is preserved or even facilitatedamong older adults. Manipulation of retrieval support for specific memorywill enhance recalling.12
Purpose Address these hypotheses directly by usinga new measure: the AutobiographicalInterview.13
1415 younger(aged 19–34years, M 23.5)15 older(aged 66–89years, M 73.5)
StimuliEvents from five lifeperiods.ProcedureParticipants were asked tochoose events from fivelife periods.Three retrieval supportwas manipulated :a) Recallb) General probe andc) Specific probe.Figure 1. Five life periods15Method Cont.
Cont.Recall.Free recall without any interruption from the examiner.General probe.Used to clarify instructions and to encourage greaterrecall of details.Specific probe.A structured interview, adapted from the MemoryCharacteristics Questionnaire (Johnson et al.,1988).16Method
Cont.Scoring and Data AnalysisA standardized, manual-based procedure was used forscoring.• Quantitative scores: Text segmentation and theircategorization.• Qualitative scores: Ratings assigned to the variouscategories.17
Cont.Text Segmentation and CategorizationEach memory was segmented into informational bitsor details. There were two broad groups of details:1.Internal and2.ExternalRating Assignment• 0-3 point scale was used to measure qualitative re-experiencing.18
ResultsReliability and Validity of the Instrument21Figure 3. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Internal andexternal event.
Cont.Agreement on ratings composites was:0.79 for Recall &For specific probe (0.41).Agreement for individual categories range from (0.60-0.90).Scale validity: significant correlations between the AMIand the Autobiographical Interview detail and ratingcomposite (.65 and .68) which indicates construct validity ofthe scale.22
Older adults produced fewer internal details and moreexternal details than younger adults. Older adults consistently produced more factual detailsrelating to semantic knowledge. There was a significant effect of specific probing of period5 on the internal details for older adults.23
THE EFFECTS OF AGE GROUP AND RETRIEVAL SUPPORT ON COMPOSITE MEASURESOF AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL RECALLFigure 4. Mean number of internal and external details given per event during recall (left)and after specific probing (right) for all five life periods (top) and for period 5 alone(bottom).24
THEEFFECTSOFAGEGROUPANDRETRIEVALSUPPORTONSPECIFICCATEGORIESOFAUTOBIOGRAPHICALRECALLFigure 5. Mean number of details given per event for recall in different internaldetail categories (top row) rating categories (middle row) and for external detailcategories (bottom row).25
The Effects of Life Period (Retention Interval) on Autobiographical Recall forOlderAdultsFigure 6. Mean number of internal details retrieved by older adultsacross five life periods for recall and after specific probing.26
Discussion Younger adults:Episodic details >Semantic details Older adults:Semantic details>Episodic detailsThis finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., McIntyre &Craik, 1987; Spencer & Raz, 1995; Zacks et al., 2000) where theyfound age-related deficiency for episodic information.Whereas semantic information is preserved or even facilitated inolder adults (e.g., Adams et al., 1997).27
CONT.• Highly effective• 100% increase in details andraising ratingsManipulation ofprobing• No age effect for internal details.• Reduce age differences inepisodic richness for internaldetails.Controlledretentioninterval28
Cont. Contrary to expectations from prior research (Craik, 1983;Craik & McDowd, 1987).Manipulationof retrievalsupportAgedifferencesEpisodicreexperiencing29
Cont. This manipulation was not sufficient to reduce differencesin episodic richness as assessed by the ratings. Furtherresearch is needed to exclude this short-coming.30
AI can be used to differentiate patients trulyamnesic for remote personal information from thosewith inefficient retrieval operations who are notamnesic. Eyewitness testimony.In Campbell et al., (2002):Episodic recall is substantially increased byprobing in patients with self-initiated retrievaldeficits due to focal frontal lesions.31
Conclusion The Autobiographical Interview provides reliable andvalid directories of episodic and semanticcontributions to personal remote memory. Retrieval support did not differentially affect olderadults’ recollections. Although it did reduce agedifferences when retention interval was controlled.33