Attentional Effects of Hand Proximity Occur Later in Older Adults: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials

Catherine L. Reed Claremont McKenna College

group hand condition stimulus type anova

Age-Differences in the Temporal Properties of Proactive Interference in Working Memory

within working memory extend beyond short term intervals
3 back vs 4 back repeated measures anova
target trials vs prior proximal lure trials anova

proximal lures 4 back compared-3 back, F(1,50)<=>21.63, p<=>.01, eta2<=>.30

Working Memory Training in Older Adults: Bayesian Evidence Supporting the Absence of Transfer

Sabrina Guye, University Research Priority Program, University of

probably yielded inflated effect size estimates
questionnaires cognitive preassessment extensive cognitive test
based cognitive training cognitive post extensive cognitive test

Age-Related Differences in Associative Memory: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives

Moshe Naveh-Benjamin, Department of Psychological Sciences, Uni-

Effects of Time of Day on Age-Related Associative Deficits

The Effects of Stereotype Threat on the Associative Memory Deficit of Older Adults

Memory for Important Item-Location Associations in Younger and Older Adults

The Effects of Value on Context-Item Associative Memory in Younger and Older Adults

cumulative hit versus false alarm rate curve

Effects of Changes in Schematic Support and of Item Repetition on Age-Related Associative Memory Deficits: Theoretically-Driven Empirical Attempts to Reduce Older Adults' High False Alarm Rate

Hope C. Fine, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of souri, 106 McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail:  missouri.edu

Age Differences in Memory for Meaningful and Arbitrary Associations: A Memory Retrieval Account

Tarek Amer, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, and Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mail:

Older Adults' Associative Memory Is Modified by Manner of Presentation at Encoding and Retrieval

incongruent trials varied slightly across test

M<=>.18, SE<=>.04) compared congruent retrieval presentation (M<=>.02, SE<=>.04
M<=>.29) compared congruent retrieval presentations (M<=>.01