Further testing of limits of cognitive plasticity: Negative age differences in a mnemonic skill are robust.
Abstract
Earlier testing-the-limits research on age differences in cognitive plasticity of a memory skill was extended by 18 additional assessment and training sessions to explore whether older adults were able to catch up with additional practice and improved training conditions. The focus was on the method of loci, which requires mental imagination to encode and retrieve lists of words from memory in serial order. Of the original 37 subjects, 35 (16 young, ranging from 20 to 30 years of age, and 19 older adults, ranging from 66 to 80 years of age) participated in the follow-up study. Older adults showed sizable performance deficits when compared with young adults and tested for limits of reserve capacity. The negative age difference was substantial, resistant to extensive practice, and applied to all subjects studied. The primary origin for this negative age difference may be a loss in the production and use of mental imagination for operations of the mind.
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?
Testing-the-limits studies showed that adults in both age groups greatly improved their memory performance.
“First, adults in both age groups greatly improved their memory performance. This finding confirms findings from the first generation of studies, documenting the continued existence of cognitive plasticity in cognitively healthy older adults”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Baltes & Kliegl, 1992
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 312
- Authors
- Baltes, P. B., & Kliegl, R.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
- ORCID
- Kliegl, Reinhold
- Venue
- Developmental Psychology
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-125
- ISSN
- 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0599
- OpenAlex
- W2084023433
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 11.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- cognitive plasticity, age differences, method of loci, older adults, reserve capacity, mental imagery, memory training, serial recall, cognitive aging
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
