4.3 Article

Neural Basis for Recognition Confidence in Younger and Older Adults

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 139-153

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0014029

关键词

aging; memory; metamemory; monitoring; fMRI

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41RR14075, P41 RR014075] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG027435-02, R01 AG027435-03, R37 AG008441-17, R01 AG008441, R01 AG027435, R01 AG027435-01, R37 AG008441-16, R37 AG008441, R37 AG008441-19, R37 AG008441-12, AG08441, R01 AG027435-02S1, R01-AG027435, R37 AG008441-11, R37 AG008441-14, R37 AG008441-15, P01 AG004953, R37 AG008441-18, P01-AG-04953, R37 AG008441-13] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [K23-NS02189, K23 NS002189] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although several studies have examined the neural basis for age-related changes in objective memory performance, less is known about how the process of memory monitoring changes with aging. The authors used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine retrospective confidence in memory performance in aging. During low confidence, both younger and older adults showed behavioral evidence that they were guessing during recognition and that they were aware they were guessing when making confidence judgments. Similarly, both younger and older adults showed increased neural activity during low- compared to high-confidence responses in the lateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and left intraparietal sulcus. In contrast, older adults showed more high-confidence errors than younger adults. Younger adults showed greater activity for high compared to low confidence in medial temporal lobe structures, but older adults did not show this pattern. Taken together, these findings may suggest that impairments in the confidence-accuracy relationship for memory in older adults, which are often driven by high-confidence errors, may be primarily related to altered neural signals associated with greater activity for high-confidence responses.

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

4.3
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