Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:40:05.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Errorless learning and elaborative self-generation in healthy older adults and individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment: Mnemonic benefits and mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

TOBI LUBINSKY ,
JILL B. RICH  and
NICOLE D. ANDERSON
TOBI LUBINSKY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JILL B. RICH
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Department of Psychology, Baycrest, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
NICOLE D. ANDERSON*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Baycrest, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit, Baycrest, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Nicole D. Anderson, Ph.D., Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit, Baycrest, 3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario M6A 2E1, Canada. E-mail: nanderson@klaru-baycrest.on.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Errorless learning is an intervention that benefits memory performance in healthy older adults and a variety of clinical populations. A limitation of the errorless learning technique is that it is passive and does not involve elaborative processing. We report two studies investigating the added benefits of elaborative, self-generated learning to the errorless learning advantage. We also explored the mnemonic mechanisms of the errorless learning advantage. In both studies, older adults and individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) completed four encoding conditions representing the crossing of errorless/errorful learning and self-generated/experimenter-provided learning. Self-generation enhanced the errorless learning benefit in cued recall and cued recognition, but not in free recall or item recognition. An errorless learning advantage was observed for priming of target words, and this effect was amplified for participants with aMCI after self-generated learning. Moreover, the aMCI group showed significant priming of prior self-generated errors. These results demonstrate that self-generation enhances the errorless learning advantage when study and test conditions match. The data also support the argument that errorless learning eliminates the misleading implicit influence of prior errors, as well as the need for explicit memory processes to distinguish targets from errors. (JINS, 2009, 15, 704–716.)

Keywords

GenerationLearningImplicit memoryCued recallRecognition memoryNeuropsychological tests
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 15 , Issue 5 , September 2009 , pp. 704 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, N.D., & Craik, F.I.M. (2006). The mnemonic mechanisms of errorless learning. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2806–2813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, N.D., Ebert, P.L., Jennings, J.M., Grady, C.L., Cabeza, M., & Graham, S. (2008). Recollection- and familiarity-based memory in healthy aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology, 22, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A., & Wilson, B.A. (1994). When implicit learning fails: Amnesia and the problem of error elimination. Neuropsychologia, 32, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, P.A., & Fischler, I. (1980). Completion norms for 329 sentence contexts. Memory and Cognition, 8, 631–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, J., & Benedict, R.H.B. (2001). Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised (HVLT-R) [Manual]. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Clare, L., & Wilson, B.A. (2004). Memory rehabilitation techniques for people with early-stage dementia. Zeitschrift fur Gerontopsychologie & Psychiatrie, 17, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, L., Wilson, B.A., Carter, G., Roth, I., & Hodges, J.R. (2002). Relearning face-name associations in early Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 16, 538–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, T.H. III, & Larrabee, G.J. (1990). A subject-rating scale for evaluating memory in everyday life. Psychology and Aging, 5, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deWinstanley, P.A., Bjork, E.L., & Bjork, R.A. (1996). Generation effects and the lack thereof: The role of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory, 4, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J., & Clare, L. (2007). Learning face-name associations in early-stage dementia: Comparing the effects of errorless learning and effortful processing. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 17, 735–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J.J., Wilson, B.A., Schuri, U., Andrade, J., Baddeley, A., Bruna, O., et al. (2000). A comparison of “errorless” and “trial-and-error” learning methods for teaching individuals with acquired memory deficits. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10, 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fastenau, P.S., Denburg, N.L., & Hufford, B.J. (1999). Adult norms for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test and for supplemental recognition and matching trials from the extended Complex Figure Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 30–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirshman, E., & Bjork, R.A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 484–494.Google Scholar
Hunkin, H.M., Squires, E.J., Parkin, A.J., & Tidy, J.A. (1998). Are the benefits of errorless learning dependent on implicit memory? Neuropsychologia, 36, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ikier, S., & Hasher, L. (2006). Age differences in implicit interference. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 61B, P278–P284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivnik, R.J., Malec, J.F., Smith, G.E., Tangalos, E.G., & Petersen, R.C. (1996). Neuropsychological tests’ norms above age 55: COWAT, BNT, MAE Token, WRAT-R Reading, AMNART, STROOP, TMT, and JLO. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivnik, R.J., Malec, J.F., Smith, G.E., Tangalos, E.G., Petersen, R.C., Kokmen, E., & Kurland, L.T. (1992a). Mayo’s older Americans normative studies: WMS-R norms for ages 56 to 94. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6(Supp 1), 49–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivnik, R.J., Malec, J.F., Smith, G.E., Tangalos, E.G., Petersen, R.C., Kokmen, E., & Kurland, L.T. (1992b). Mayo’s older Americans normative studies: WAIS-R norms for ages 56 to 97. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6(Supp 1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Kim, S., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R.T. (2007). Aging and a benefit of distractibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, M.P., & Brody, E.M. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Geronotologist, 9, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lezak, M.D., Howieson, D.B., & Loring, D.W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, J.A., Ivnik, R.J., Smith, G.E., Bohac, D.L., Tangalos, E.G., Kokmen., E., et al. (1998). Normative data for the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 536–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattis, S. (2001). Dementia Rating Scale-2 [Manual]. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M.A., Rigler, G.L., & Waddill, P.J. (1990). Generation effects in free recall: Further support for a three-factor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 789–798.Google ScholarPubMed
Morris, C.D., Bransford, J.D., & Franks, J.J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, A.J., Hunkin, N.M., & Squires, E.J. (1998). Unlearning John Major: The use of errorless learning in the reacquisition of proper names following herpes simplex encephalitis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R.C. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roediger, H.L. III, & Marsh, E.J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1155–1159.Google ScholarPubMed
Rowe, G., Valderrama, S., Hasher, L., & Lenartowicz, A. (2006). Attentional disregulation: A benefit for implicit memory. Psychology and Aging, 21, 826–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, R.J. (1997). Unprimed stem completion is only moderately predicted by word frequency and length. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slamecka, N.J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604.Google Scholar
Stoub, T.R., Rogalski, E.J., Leurgans, S., Bennett, D.A., & Detoledo-Morrell, L. (2008). Rate of entorhinal and hippocampal atrophy in incipient and mild AD: Relation to memory function. Neurobiology of Aging. [Epub ahead of print]Google ScholarPubMed
Tailby, R., & Haslam, C. (2003). An investigation of errorless learning in memory-impaired patients: Improving the technique and clarifying theory. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1230–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised [Manual]. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale – Revised [Manual]. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Welsh, K.A., Breitner, J.C.S., & Hagruder, H.K. (1993). Detection of dementia in the elderly using telephone screening for cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 6, 103–110.Google Scholar
Winblad, B., Palmer, K., Kivipelto, M., Jelic, V., Fratiglioni, L., Wahlund, L.-O., et al. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment – beyond controversies, towards a consensus: Report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zachary, R.A. (1985). Shipley Institute of Living Scale: Revised Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Zigmond, A.S., & Snaith, R.P. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed