Limits...
Training-induced compensation versus magnification of individual differences in memory performance.

Lövdén M, Brehmer Y, Li SC, Lindenberger U - Front Hum Neurosci (2012)

Bottom Line: Initial mnemonic instructions reduced between-person differences in memory performance, whereas further practice after instruction magnified between-person differences.We conclude that strategy instruction compensates for inefficient processing among the initially less able.In contrast, continued practice magnifies ability-based between-person differences by uncovering individual differences in memory plasticity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Do individuals with higher levels of task-relevant cognitive resources gain more from training, or do they gain less? For episodic memory, empirical evidence is mixed. Here, we revisit this issue by applying structural equation models for capturing individual differences in change to data from 108 participants aged 9-12, 20-25, and 65-78 years. Participants learned and practiced an imagery-based mnemonic to encode and retrieve words by location cues. Initial mnemonic instructions reduced between-person differences in memory performance, whereas further practice after instruction magnified between-person differences. We conclude that strategy instruction compensates for inefficient processing among the initially less able. In contrast, continued practice magnifies ability-based between-person differences by uncovering individual differences in memory plasticity.

No MeSH data available.


Baseline performance and gains from instruction. Mean performance (Timed Recall Score) at baseline and post-instruction assessment for children, younger adults, and older adults, as predicted from baseline performance and instruction gain.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3351801&req=5

Figure 4: Baseline performance and gains from instruction. Mean performance (Timed Recall Score) at baseline and post-instruction assessment for children, younger adults, and older adults, as predicted from baseline performance and instruction gain.

Mentions: Next we estimated the LDM of instruction gains shown in Figure 1B. The starting model had a fit identical to the confirmatory factor model reported above. We started by examining the compensation view's prediction that groups starting out lower would gain more from instruction. The means at baseline and post-instruction assessments (predicted from the mean gain) are displayed as a function of age group in Figure 4. An inspection of this figure suggests age-group differences in baseline performance. Estimating the means of baseline performance to be equal across age groups, as an omnibus test of group differences, yielded a reliably less well fitting model than the starting model, Δχ2 = 40.79, df = 2, p < 0.001. Univariate tests showed that younger adults (μpre = 13.25) performed significantly better than both children (μpre = 7.74), Δχ2 = 35.53, df = 1, p < 0.001, and older adults (μpre = 7.09), Δχ2 = 32.81, df = 1, p < 0.001. Children and older adults did not differ significantly in baseline performance, Δχ2 = 0.53, df = 1, p > 0.467.


Training-induced compensation versus magnification of individual differences in memory performance.

Lövdén M, Brehmer Y, Li SC, Lindenberger U - Front Hum Neurosci (2012)

Baseline performance and gains from instruction. Mean performance (Timed Recall Score) at baseline and post-instruction assessment for children, younger adults, and older adults, as predicted from baseline performance and instruction gain.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3351801&req=5

Figure 4: Baseline performance and gains from instruction. Mean performance (Timed Recall Score) at baseline and post-instruction assessment for children, younger adults, and older adults, as predicted from baseline performance and instruction gain.
Mentions: Next we estimated the LDM of instruction gains shown in Figure 1B. The starting model had a fit identical to the confirmatory factor model reported above. We started by examining the compensation view's prediction that groups starting out lower would gain more from instruction. The means at baseline and post-instruction assessments (predicted from the mean gain) are displayed as a function of age group in Figure 4. An inspection of this figure suggests age-group differences in baseline performance. Estimating the means of baseline performance to be equal across age groups, as an omnibus test of group differences, yielded a reliably less well fitting model than the starting model, Δχ2 = 40.79, df = 2, p < 0.001. Univariate tests showed that younger adults (μpre = 13.25) performed significantly better than both children (μpre = 7.74), Δχ2 = 35.53, df = 1, p < 0.001, and older adults (μpre = 7.09), Δχ2 = 32.81, df = 1, p < 0.001. Children and older adults did not differ significantly in baseline performance, Δχ2 = 0.53, df = 1, p > 0.467.

Bottom Line: Initial mnemonic instructions reduced between-person differences in memory performance, whereas further practice after instruction magnified between-person differences.We conclude that strategy instruction compensates for inefficient processing among the initially less able.In contrast, continued practice magnifies ability-based between-person differences by uncovering individual differences in memory plasticity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Do individuals with higher levels of task-relevant cognitive resources gain more from training, or do they gain less? For episodic memory, empirical evidence is mixed. Here, we revisit this issue by applying structural equation models for capturing individual differences in change to data from 108 participants aged 9-12, 20-25, and 65-78 years. Participants learned and practiced an imagery-based mnemonic to encode and retrieve words by location cues. Initial mnemonic instructions reduced between-person differences in memory performance, whereas further practice after instruction magnified between-person differences. We conclude that strategy instruction compensates for inefficient processing among the initially less able. In contrast, continued practice magnifies ability-based between-person differences by uncovering individual differences in memory plasticity.

No MeSH data available.