Psyco 459 Studies
1. Studies supporting Sensory Hypothesis: Lindenberger (1994) and Schnieder (2000)
2. Lindenberger 1994: Purpose participants procedure results and interpre- tation along with 2 theories that
explain results.: Purpose: Look at correlative relationships between sensory function, age, and intelligence.
Participants: Group 73-100y/o avg. 85. old people Procedure:
- Measure 5 cognitive abilities:
Speed, Reasoning, Memory, Knowledge, and Fluency
- Do tests of sensory function - visual and auditory
Visual did tests both w/ & w/o glasses and took best score
Results: Visual accounted for 41% of variance, auditory accounted for 34% of variance. Together counted for 49% of total
variance and 93% of age related variance
Interpretation: Sensory differences account for differences in intelligence. Common cause hypothesis: sensory and
cognitive function decline caused by same thing.
This is supported by walking gait predicting IQ.
Altnernative: Cognitive load hypothesis - sensory deficiency means you need to allocate more cognitive resources to
the sensory part, that you have less left for the cognition leading to deficits in cognition.
3. Schneider 2000: Purpose, participants, procedure, results, interpretation.: - Purpose: Is decline in speech
comprehension due to sensory decline, or another cognitive process?
Participants: Old and young cross-sectional
Procedure: Use SPIN test (speech perception in noise test) to measure individual speech-to-noise ratio. Test has
background noise w/ speech. Have to remember last word of sentence, either predictable or unpredictable. Set so they
get 50% of unpredictable endings.
IV: listen to 2 sentences in each condition: no noise, moderate noise, high noise (individually calibrated to SPIN). Male
speaker.
DV: Memory for details, and memory for gist of the sentence (integrative memory).
1/
7
, Psyco 459 Studies
Results: Old matched young for gist in all conditions. Old matched young for details in no noise, and moderate noise
conditions, but did worse in high noise condition.
Interpretation: When hearing abilities are adjusted for, there is little age difference in observed speech comprehension.
Suggests that older people draw on more cognitive resources when differences unaccounted for, but not when
compensated for. Evidence for the Sensory Hypothesis.
4. Original Study showing inhibition declines with age: Hasher 1988
5. What study/paper examined the 3 different components of inhibition? De- fine the 3 aspects.: Lustig 2007
Access - Prevent irrelevant things from being in your focus Deletion - remove
irrelevant things from focus
Restraint - Stop response to irrelevant stimuli
6. What studies support the inhibitory deficit hypothesis? (7): Comalli 1962 Hasher 1991
Tipper 1991
McDowd 1992
Hartman 1991
Gerard 1991
Gazalli 2005
7. Describe Comalli 1962 study purpose, participants, procedure, results, and interpretation.: Purpose: Test
inhibition across lifespan using Stroop task
Participants: Aged 7-80
Procedure: Stroop task - DV was time it took to do lists
Results: 7-year-olds the worst, then older people, then adults. Looked like bigger difference for older than younger betwee
control and test, but it was a scaling effect. Took top old ppl and worst young ppl and there was still a difference.
Interpretation: Older adults are worse at inhibiting.
8. Describe Hasher (1991) Purpose, participants, procedure, results & interpre- tation.: Purpose: Use negative
priming paradigm to measure inhibition over aging.
Participants: Old and young cross sectional
Procedure: Say green letter and ignore red letter. DV is reaction time. Control & experimental conditions - in experiment
a letter is first inhibited, then in the
2/
7
1. Studies supporting Sensory Hypothesis: Lindenberger (1994) and Schnieder (2000)
2. Lindenberger 1994: Purpose participants procedure results and interpre- tation along with 2 theories that
explain results.: Purpose: Look at correlative relationships between sensory function, age, and intelligence.
Participants: Group 73-100y/o avg. 85. old people Procedure:
- Measure 5 cognitive abilities:
Speed, Reasoning, Memory, Knowledge, and Fluency
- Do tests of sensory function - visual and auditory
Visual did tests both w/ & w/o glasses and took best score
Results: Visual accounted for 41% of variance, auditory accounted for 34% of variance. Together counted for 49% of total
variance and 93% of age related variance
Interpretation: Sensory differences account for differences in intelligence. Common cause hypothesis: sensory and
cognitive function decline caused by same thing.
This is supported by walking gait predicting IQ.
Altnernative: Cognitive load hypothesis - sensory deficiency means you need to allocate more cognitive resources to
the sensory part, that you have less left for the cognition leading to deficits in cognition.
3. Schneider 2000: Purpose, participants, procedure, results, interpretation.: - Purpose: Is decline in speech
comprehension due to sensory decline, or another cognitive process?
Participants: Old and young cross-sectional
Procedure: Use SPIN test (speech perception in noise test) to measure individual speech-to-noise ratio. Test has
background noise w/ speech. Have to remember last word of sentence, either predictable or unpredictable. Set so they
get 50% of unpredictable endings.
IV: listen to 2 sentences in each condition: no noise, moderate noise, high noise (individually calibrated to SPIN). Male
speaker.
DV: Memory for details, and memory for gist of the sentence (integrative memory).
1/
7
, Psyco 459 Studies
Results: Old matched young for gist in all conditions. Old matched young for details in no noise, and moderate noise
conditions, but did worse in high noise condition.
Interpretation: When hearing abilities are adjusted for, there is little age difference in observed speech comprehension.
Suggests that older people draw on more cognitive resources when differences unaccounted for, but not when
compensated for. Evidence for the Sensory Hypothesis.
4. Original Study showing inhibition declines with age: Hasher 1988
5. What study/paper examined the 3 different components of inhibition? De- fine the 3 aspects.: Lustig 2007
Access - Prevent irrelevant things from being in your focus Deletion - remove
irrelevant things from focus
Restraint - Stop response to irrelevant stimuli
6. What studies support the inhibitory deficit hypothesis? (7): Comalli 1962 Hasher 1991
Tipper 1991
McDowd 1992
Hartman 1991
Gerard 1991
Gazalli 2005
7. Describe Comalli 1962 study purpose, participants, procedure, results, and interpretation.: Purpose: Test
inhibition across lifespan using Stroop task
Participants: Aged 7-80
Procedure: Stroop task - DV was time it took to do lists
Results: 7-year-olds the worst, then older people, then adults. Looked like bigger difference for older than younger betwee
control and test, but it was a scaling effect. Took top old ppl and worst young ppl and there was still a difference.
Interpretation: Older adults are worse at inhibiting.
8. Describe Hasher (1991) Purpose, participants, procedure, results & interpre- tation.: Purpose: Use negative
priming paradigm to measure inhibition over aging.
Participants: Old and young cross sectional
Procedure: Say green letter and ignore red letter. DV is reaction time. Control & experimental conditions - in experiment
a letter is first inhibited, then in the
2/
7
