1. Aging and Autobiographical Memory: Dissociating
Episodic From Semantic Retrieval
by
Levine, Svoboda, Hay, Winocur & Moscovitch (2004)
N A I M A N I G A R
M S S T U D E N T
D E P T . O F P S Y C H O L O G Y
U N I V E R S I T Y O F D H A K A
1

2. What am I going to Present?
• Defining Key Variables
• Relevant Studies
• Rationale
• Research questions
• Hypotheses
• Purpose
• Method & data analysis
• Results
• Discussion
• Evaluation
2

3. Key Variables
Autobiographical memory is memory for the events of
one’s life. (Conway and Rubin, 1993)
3

4. Key Variables Cont.
4
Episodic memory
Conscious
Recollection
Autonoetic or
Self-knowing
Awareness
(Tulving, 1972; Wheeler, Stuss, and Tulving, 1997)

5. Key Variables
Cont
.
Semantic memory
Ourselves
General Knowledge
Noetic
Or
Knowing
awareness
Conscious
Recollection
(Tulving, 1972; Wheeler et al, 1997)
Retrieval
5

6. Relevant Studies
Zacks, Hasher & Li, (2000) (McIntyre & Craik, 1987; Spencer &
Raz, 1995)
Aging
Retrieval
explicit, effortful,
and unstructured
retrieval tasks
Younger
Adults
Episodic contextual details
Episodic contextual details
Older
Adults
6

7. Relevant Studies
• Older adults’ recollections of manufactured real life events
contain more elaborative statements related to personal
thoughts or feelings than do those of younger adults
(Hashtroudi et al., 1990).
7
Cont.

8. Relevant Studies
Aging
Episodic
contextual
details
Prefrontal cortex
Damagein
Prefrontalcortex
Retrieval
(Schacter, 1987; Wheeler et al., 1997; West,
1996; Dupuis & Acker, 1998)
Cont.
8

9. 9
Implicit
Semantic
knowledge
Emotional
material
Retrieval
support
(Craik & McDowd, 1987; Carstensen & Turk Charles,
1994; Hay & Jacoby, 1999)
Relevant Studies
Cont.

10. 10
It was the first study-
• Episodic and non-episodic processing
• Manipulate retrieval support, and
• Analyze retention-interval effects in younger
and older adults.

11. Research Questions
 Does aging cause difference in retrieval of
episodic from semantic autobiographical
memory?
 Does manipulation of retrieval support enhance
recalling?
11

12. Hypotheses
 Aging negatively affects episodic memory, whereas
semantic memory is preserved or even facilitated
among older adults.
 Manipulation of retrieval support for specific memory
will enhance recalling.
12

13. Purpose
 Address these hypotheses directly by using
a new measure: the Autobiographical
Interview.
13

14. 14
15 younger
(aged 19–34
years, M 23.5)
15 older
(aged 66–89
years, M 73.5)

15. Stimuli
Events from five life
periods.
Procedure
Participants were asked to
choose events from five
life periods.
Three retrieval support
was manipulated :
a) Recall
b) General probe and
c) Specific probe.
Figure 1. Five life periods
15
Method Cont.

16. 
Cont.
Recall.
Free recall without any interruption from the examiner.
General probe.
Used to clarify instructions and to encourage greater
recall of details.
Specific probe.
A structured interview, adapted from the Memory
Characteristics Questionnaire (Johnson et al.,1988).
16
Method

17. Cont.
Scoring and Data Analysis
A standardized, manual-based procedure was used for
scoring.
• Quantitative scores: Text segmentation and their
categorization.
• Qualitative scores: Ratings assigned to the various
categories.
17

18. Cont.
Text Segmentation and Categorization
Each memory was segmented into informational bits
or details. There were two broad groups of details:
1.Internal and
2.External
Rating Assignment
• 0-3 point scale was used to measure qualitative re-
experiencing.
18

19. 19

20. Cont.
Figure 2. Younger adult’s autobiographical memory protocol.
20

21. Results
Reliability and Validity of the Instrument
21
Figure 3. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Internal and
external event.

22. 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 AMI
and the Autobiographical Interview detail and rating
composite (.65 and .68) which indicates construct validity of
the scale.
22

23.  Older adults produced fewer internal details and more
external details than younger adults.
 Older adults consistently produced more factual details
relating to semantic knowledge.
 There was a significant effect of specific probing of period
5 on the internal details for older adults.
23

24. THE EFFECTS OF AGE GROUP AND RETRIEVAL SUPPORT ON COMPOSITE MEASURES
OF AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL RECALL
Figure 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

25. THEEFFECTSOFAGEGROUPANDRETRIEVAL
SUPPORTONSPECIFICCATEGORIESOF
AUTOBIOGRAPHICALRECALL
Figure 5. Mean number of details given per event for recall in different internal
detail categories (top row) rating categories (middle row) and for external detail
categories (bottom row).
25

26. The Effects of Life Period (Retention Interval) on Autobiographical Recall for
OlderAdults
Figure 6. Mean number of internal details retrieved by older adults
across five life periods for recall and after specific probing.
26

27. Discussion
 Younger adults:
Episodic details >Semantic details
 Older adults:
Semantic details>Episodic details
This finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., McIntyre &
Craik, 1987; Spencer & Raz, 1995; Zacks et al., 2000) where they
found age-related deficiency for episodic information.
Whereas semantic information is preserved or even facilitated in
older adults (e.g., Adams et al., 1997).
27

28. CONT.
• Highly effective
• 100% increase in details and
raising ratings
Manipulation of
probing
• No age effect for internal details.
• Reduce age differences in
episodic richness for internal
details.
Controlled
retention
interval
28

29. Cont.
 Contrary to expectations from prior research (Craik, 1983;
Craik & McDowd, 1987).
Manipulation
of retrieval
support
Age
differences
Episodic
reexperiencing
29

30. Cont.
 This manipulation was not sufficient to reduce differences
in episodic richness as assessed by the ratings. Further
research is needed to exclude this short-coming.
30

31.  AI can be used to differentiate patients truly
amnesic for remote personal information from those
with inefficient retrieval operations who are not
amnesic.
 Eyewitness testimony.
In Campbell et al., (2002):
Episodic recall is substantially increased by
probing in patients with self-initiated retrieval
deficits due to focal frontal lesions.
31

32.  Small Sample Size
 Statistical weakness
32

33. Conclusion
 The Autobiographical Interview provides reliable and
valid directories of episodic and semantic
contributions to personal remote memory.
 Retrieval support did not differentially affect older
adults’ recollections. Although it did reduce age
differences when retention interval was controlled.
33

34. 34