Aging, Metacognition, and Cognitive Control
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People may prefer different strategies or cognitive styles, but they can switch strategies when contextual demands require it.
“Individuals may differ in preferred strategies or cognitive styles, but they can shift strategies if contextual demands and constraints require them to”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Hertzog & Dunlosky, 2004
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 114 · Cited by 86
- Authors
- Hertzog, C., & Dunlosky, J.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Venue
- Psychology of Learning and Motivation
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Published
- 2004
- Pages
- 215-251
- ISSN
- 0079-7421 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1516907526
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 114
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.46
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- aging, metacognition, cognitive control, strategy use, associative learning, paired-associate memory, encoding strategies, older adults, adult development, normal aging, memory impairment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
