Cited by 69Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and Testing

Comparing memory skill maintenance across the life span: Preservation in adults, increase in children.

Open access
Brehmer, Yvonne, Li, Shu-Chen, Straube, Benjamin, Stoll, Gundula, von Oertzen, Timo, Müller, Viktor, Lindenberger, Ulman·2008·Psychology and Aging

Abstract

The authors examined life-span differences in the maintenance of skilled episodic memory performance by assessing 100 individuals (10 -11, 12-13, 21-26, and 66-79 years old) 11 months after termination of an intensive multisession mnemonic training program (Y. Brehmer, S.-C. Li, V. Müller, T. von Oertzen, & U. Lindenberger, 2007). Skill maintenance was tested in 2 follow-up sessions, the first without and the second with mnemonic reinstruction. Younger and older adults' average performance levels were stable across time. In contrast, both younger and older children's memory performance improved beyond originally attained levels. Older adults' performance improved from the first to the second follow-up session, presumably profiting from instruction-induced skill reactivation. Results suggest that (a) skill maintenance is largely intact in healthy older adults, (b) older adults need environmental support to fully reactivate their former skill levels (cf. F. I. M. Craik, 1983), and (c) children adapt a skill learned 11 months ago to their increasing cognitive capabilities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0882-7974.23.2.227

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brehmer, Y., Li, S.-C., Straube, B., Stoll, G., von Oertzen, T., Müller, V., & Lindenberger, U.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Published
2008
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
227-238
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
OpenAlex
W2156646630
Cited by
69
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
German Research Foundation (DFG FOR 448)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
skill retention, episodic memory, mnemonic training, older adults, children, cognitive aging
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aging, Child, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, Neuronal Plasticity, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Temporal Lobe, Prefrontal Cortex

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