Biomedical subjects

A M Hubley

Publications and source records attributed to A M Hubley.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Rates of forgetting on three measures of verbal learning using retention intervals ranging from 20 min to 62 days.

Previous research has examined age effects in rates of forgetting at short delay intervals of 20-30 min. The present study examined age effects in three verbal memory tasks at longer delay intervals of up to 62 days. Study participants consisted of 371 community-dwelling men and women comprising three age groups 20-39, 40-59, and 60-79 years. Age differences in acquisition and 20-min delayed recall were found on each of the memory tasks (paragraph, word list, and word pairs). However, all age groups showed equivalent rates of forgetting after this short delay interval. When participants were required to retain information for longer delay intervals (i.e., 1-62 days), increasing age was associated with faster rates of forgetting for day 1, but not over longer delay intervals. Age differences in rates of forgetting for longer delay intervals and the facilitating effects of prompted recall are discussed in terms of encoding and storage versus retrieval processes.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

The 60-item Boston Naming Test: norms for cognitively intact adults aged 25 to 88 years.

Age- and education-stratified norms on the 60-item Boston Naming Test (BNT) are presented for 219 cognitively intact adults aged 25-88 years. The sample size, age range, and education levels of this sample represent an improvement over currently available norms. Eight short forms of the BNT are compared with the 60-item BNT. Frequency of errors for individual BNT items and the distribution of incorrect responses over seven different categories of errors are discussed. Finally, specific probes to overcome difficulties with ambiguous items are suggested.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Age differences in recall and predicting recall of action events and words.

Age differences in recall and prediction of recall were examined with different memory tasks. We asked 36 younger (19-28 yrs) and 36 older (60-81 yrs) women to provide both global and item-by-item predictions of their recall, and then to recall either (a) Subject Performance Tasks (SPTs), (b) verb-noun word-pairs memorized in list-like fashion (Word-Pairs), or (c) nonsense verb-noun word-pairs (Nonsense-Pairs) over three experimental trials. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that these tasks would vary in relative difficulty and flexibility of encoding. The results indicated that (a) age differences in global predictions (task specific self-efficacy) and recall performance across trials were minimized with SPT as compared with verbal materials, (b) global predictions were higher and more accurate for SPT as compared to verbal materials, and (c) item-by-item predictions were most accurate for materials encoded with the most flexibility (Nonsense Pairs). The results suggest that SPTs may provide some level of environmental support to reduce age differences in performance and task-specific self-efficacy, but that memory monitoring may depend on specific characteristics of the stimuli (i.e., flexibility of encoding) rather than their verbal or nonverbal nature.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Effects of age on the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor complex figures: test-retest data using an intentional learning paradigm.

The degree to which the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor complex figures provide equivalent measures of visual memory, and the effects of age on figure comparability were examined in two experiments. Both experiments employed a multiple-trial, intentional learning procedure wherein each figure was administered twice in a counterbalanced sequence to subjects aged 20 to 80 years. In Experiment 1, a constant 60-s exposure duration was used; in Experiment 2, a self-pacing procedure was employed where the exposure duration was individually determined. The results from both experiments showed that the Taylor figure was easier to learn than the Rey-Osterrieth figure, indicating that the two figures are not equivalent for testing memory. These results were supported by subjective judgements on the relative difficulty to learn and remember each figure. Finally, younger (20-59 years) subjects performed at a higher level than older (60-80 years) subjects on both figures. Recommendations and possible alternatives are suggested regarding the use of the figures in both constructional and visuo-spatial memory test-retest situations.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

Four studies comparing the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor complex figures.

The ability of the Rey-Osterrieth (R-O) and Taylor complex figures to produce equivalent scores on both constructional and memory tasks was examined in four studies. While the two figures yielded equivalent copy scores, the Taylor figure produced significantly higher scores on memory tests. This latter relationship was observed with three different retention conditions (immediate, 20-min, and 1-month recall), two types of learning paradigms (incidental and intentional), and two scoring systems (itemized and clinical neuropsychological). The failure to obtain equivalent recall scores cautions against using the R-O and Taylor as companion figures to evaluate normal recovery and treatment effectiveness on mnemonic processes. The relative merits of using an intentional rather than an incidental procedure to administer the figures in test-retest situations are discussed.

Adult↗