Cited by 45Aging and Gerontology ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Are There Age-Related Differences in the Ability to Learn Configural Responses?

Open access
Clark, Rachel, Freedberg, Michael, Hazeltine, Eliot, Voss, Michelle W.·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Age is often associated with a decline in cognitive abilities that are important for maintaining functional independence, such as learning new skills. Many forms of motor learning appear to be relatively well preserved with age, while learning tasks that involve associative binding tend to be negatively affected. The current study aimed to determine whether age differences exist on a configural response learning task, which includes aspects of motor learning and associative binding. Young (M = 24 years) and older adults (M = 66.5 years) completed a modified version of a configural learning task. Given the requirement of associative binding in the configural relationships between responses, we predicted older adults would show significantly less learning than young adults. Older adults demonstrated lower performance (slower reaction time and lower accuracy). However, contrary to our prediction, older adults showed similar rates of learning as indexed by a configural learning score compared to young adults. These results suggest that the ability to acquire knowledge incidentally about configural response relationships is largely unaffected by cognitive aging. The configural response learning task provides insight into the task demands that constrain learning abilities in older adults.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0137260

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The majority of SRL literature with older adults was conducted using GUIs (text reading).

    “Since the majority of SRL literature with older adults was conducted using GUIs (i.e., text reading, e.g., [26,91]), our fndings have unique contributions to understanding age diferences in self-regulated learning with VUIs.”

    From OK Google, Let's Learn: Using Voice User Interfaces for Informal Self-Regulated Learning of Health Topics among Younger and Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Materials and Methods (Participants; Configural learning task, page unavailable) describe older adults learning from faces displayed on a computer screen. But the task involved face–finger mappings and keypresses, not text reading or self-regulated learning. The paper also does not establish that most older-adult SRL studies used GUIs. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [32]Pinheiro J, Bates D. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clark, R., Freedberg, M., Hazeltine, E., & Voss, M. W.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Voss, Michelle W.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-08-28
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
e0137260
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150835938
Cited by
45
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
cognitive aging, older adults, motor learning, incidental learning, reaction time, age differences in learning
MeSH terms
Cognitive Aging, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Motor Skills, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, Young Adult

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