4.6 Article

Today's Older Adults Are Cognitively Fitter Than Older Adults Were 20 Years Ago, but When and How They Decline Is No Different Than in the Past

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 22-34

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/09567976221118541

关键词

cohort; cognitive ability; individual differences; sociocultural factors; historical change; Berlin Aging Studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increases in older adults' levels of cognitive performance over time have been documented in history, but there is little information about historical shifts in within-person cognitive decline and onset of decline. A study comparing data from two independent samples recruited in 1990 and 2010 found that although cognitive functioning has shifted to higher levels, there was no evidence of cohort differences in the amount or rate of decline and the onset of decline. This suggests that cognitive decline in old age proceeds similarly to two decades ago.
History-graded increases in older adults' levels of cognitive performance are well documented, but little is known about historical shifts in within-person change: cognitive decline and onset of decline. We combined harmonized perceptual-motor speed data from independent samples recruited in 1990 and 2010 to obtain 2,008 age-matched longitudinal observations (M = 78 years, 50% women) from 228 participants in the Berlin Aging Study (BASE) and 583 participants in the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). We used nonlinear growth models that orthogonalized within- and between-person age effects and controlled for retest effects. At age 78, the later-born BASE-II cohort substantially outperformed the earlier-born BASE cohort (d = 1.20; 25 years of age difference). Age trajectories, however, were parallel, and there was no evidence of cohort differences in the amount or rate of decline and the onset of decline. Cognitive functioning has shifted to higher levels, but cognitive decline in old age appears to proceed similarly as it did two decades ago.

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

4.6
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