CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Memory Processes and InfluencesAging and Gerontology ResearchCognitive Functions and Memory

Age-related differences in recall and recognition: a meta-analysis

Open access
Rhodes, Stephen, Greene, Nathaniel R., Naveh-Benjamin, Moshe·2019·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-019-01649-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Relative to younger adults, older adults tend to perform more poorly on tests of both free recall and item recognition memory. The age difference in performance is typically larger for recall tasks relative to those involving recognition. However, there have been reports of comparable age-related differences in free recall and item recognition performance. Further, a differential performance cost does not necessarily mean that processes involved in recall are specifically affected by age. Here we present a meta-analysis of 36 articles reporting 89 direct comparisons of free recall and item recognition in younger and older groups of participants. Standardized effect sizes reveal that age differences are larger for recall tasks (Hedges’ g = 0.89, 95% confidence intervals [0.75, 1.03]) than for recognition tasks (0.54, [0.37, 0.72]). Further, Brinley analyses of the data suggest that distinct functions are needed to relate younger and older performance for the two tasks. These functions differ in intercept pointing to a disproportionate age difference in recall relative to recognition. This is in line with theories of memory and aging which posit specific deficits in processes related to search and retrieval from memory.

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 · 10.3758/s13423-019-01649-y

Cites

126 of 126 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?

  • Older adults tend to perform significantly worse in recall-based tasks and take more time to learn the same amount of information compared to younger adults.

    “It is well-established in the learning literature that older adults tend to perform signifcantly poorly in recall-based tasks and take more time to learn the same amounts of information compared to younger adults [49,94].”

    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 [94]

    The Abstract reports that older adults perform more poorly than younger adults on free-recall tests, with a substantial age difference in the meta-analysis. The paper does not establish that older adults take more time to learn the same amount of information; its Description of the included studies discusses learning conditions, not time needed to reach equal learning. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 2

  1. [34]34. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Bayesian data analysis Vol. 3. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
  2. [105]105. Uttl, B., Henry, M., & Baltimore, K. (2007). Are smaller age differences on old/new recognition versus free recall tests artifacts of easy memory tests? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 61, 374.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rhodes, S., Greene, N. R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M.
Affiliations
  • Rotman Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Rhodes, Stephen
ORCID
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-08-08
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
1529-1547
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-019-01649-y
OpenAlex
W2952422171
Semantic Scholar
ceba55498049aeb70b9e6dbaa52bdffcfa493ebe
Cited by
147
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
age differences, free recall, recognition memory, older adults, memory aging, memory search, memory retrieval
MeSH terms
Cognitive Aging, Humans, Memory, Mental Recall, Recognition, Psychology, Memory, Episodic

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