4.7 Article

Theta oscillations show impaired interference detection in older adults during selective memory retrieval

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46214-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competiveness [PSI2012-33625, PSI2015-65502-C2-1-P]
  2. Economic Council of the Andalusian Government [P08-HUM-03600-Feder, P12-CTS-2369-Feder]
  3. European Research Council [647954]
  4. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [ES/R010072/1]
  5. Wolfson Society
  6. Royal Society
  7. [AP2009-2215]
  8. [BES-2013-066842]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seemingly effortless tasks, such as recognizing faces and retrieving names, become harder as we age. Such difficulties may be due to the competition generated in memory by irrelevant information that comes to mind when trying to recall a specific face or name. It is unknown, however, whether age-related struggles in retrieving these representations stem from an inability to detect competition in the first place, or from being unable to suppress competing information once interference is detected. To investigate this, we used the retrieval practice paradigm, shown to elicit memory interference, while recording electrophysiological activity in young and older adults. In two experiments, young participants showed Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF), reflecting the suppression of competing information, whereas older adults did not. Neurally, mid-frontal theta power (similar to 4-8 Hz) during the first retrieval cycle, a proxy for interference detection, increased in young compared to older adults, indicating older adults were less capable of detecting interference. Moreover, while theta power was reduced across practice cycles in younger adults, a measure of interference resolution, older adults did not show such a reduction. Thus, in contrast with younger adults, the lack of an early interference detection signal rendered older adults unable to recruit memory selection mechanisms, eliminating RIF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据