open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 1229-0718
본 연구는 일련의 기억 항목들을 순서대로 하나씩 처리하는 계열적 수행의 세부 활동 중 어떤 활동에서 연령차가 나타나는지를 밝히고, 군집화와 억제를 중심으로 계열적 수행의 연령차를 탐구하였다(연구 1). 그리고 노인의 계열적 수행을 향상시키기 위한 인출 단서의 효과를 탐구하였다(연구 2). 그 결과, 노인의 평균 반응시간이 청년보다 길게 나타났다. 그러나 청년과 노인 모두 8개짜리 계열을 3개의 군집으로 나누어 표상하였고 인출할 때에도 형성한 군집을 사용한 것으로 나타났으며, 두 집단 모두 군집 내 나머지 항목보다 군집 내 대표 항목에 대해 더 긴 반응시간을 보였다. 그리고 노인은 청년보다 과제 수행 정확률이 더 낮았고, 보속 오류를 더 많이 범하였다. 연구 2에서는 단서의 종류와 상관없이 모든 노인들이 8개짜리 계열을 3개의 군집으로 나누어 표상하고 인출하였으며, 네 단서 집단 모두 군집 내 나머지 항목보다 군집 내 대표 항목에 대해 더 긴 반응시간을 보였다. 다른 단서 유형보다도 부분 세트 항목 일치 단서 조건의 평균 반응시간이 가장 빨랐으나, 오류율에서는 집단 간 차이가 유의하지 않았다. 본 연구는 계열적 수행 시, 계열의 표상과 관련된 연령차는 존재하지 않지만, 계열 내 요소들의 인출과 방해 자극에 대한 억제 활동에서는 연령차가 존재한다는 선행 연구의 결과를 뒷받침하였고, 노년기 계열적 수행을 향상시키기 위한 부분 세트 항목 단서의 긍정적인 효과를 확인하였다.
Sequential performance refers to performing tasks in a fixed order. Performing a certain task in an orderly manner requires multiple mental processes, such as representation and retrieval of sequential information as well as blocking certain information from impeding memory performance. Among other things, it seems that the chunking strategy and inhibitory mechanisms are the most important features for sequential performance. Therefore, two experiments were administered to delineate the nature of these two components using the sequential action control task(S-ACT). We also investigated differences in recall task performance across two age groups. Older adults showed a longer mean reaction time than did young adults in Experiment 1. Both age groups formed three chunks during sequence representation when retrieving a target stimulus. Furthermore, they both showed longer RTs for the lead item of a chunk compared to the other items within a chunk. Older adults made more lag –1 errors (conservative errors) than did the young group. We conducted Experiment 2 to examine the effects of retrieval cues for improving sequential performance. Regardless of the cue type, older participants showed a relatively consistent pattern of in their retrieval. All participants showed longer RTs for the lead item of a chunk compared to its remainder. There were no significant interactions between item role and cue types for the different age groups. For different types of retrieval cues, the part-set cue-congruent group performed faster than all other groups, but retrieval accuracy was comparable across all groups.
국립국어원 (2005). 현대국어사용빈도자료.
Allen, P. A., & Coyne, A. C. (1988a). Age differences in primary organization or processing variability? Part Ⅰ: An examination of age and primary organization. Experimental Aging Research, 14, 143-149.
Allen, P. A., & Coyne, A. C. (1988b). Age differences in primary organization or processing variability? Part Ⅱ: Evidence for processing variability. Experimental Aging Research, 14, 151-157.
Arbuthnott, K. D., & Campbell, J. I. D. (2003). The locus of self-inhibition in sequential retrieval. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 177-194.
Aslan, A., & Bäumel, K. T. (2012). Retrievalinduced forgetting in old and very old age. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 1027-1032.
Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V. F. J., & Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 233-252.
Basden, D. R., & Basden, B. H. (1995). Some tests of the strategy disruption interpretation of part-list cuing inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1656-1669.
Bäumel, K. T., Pastötter, B., & Hanslmayr, S. (2010). Binding and inhibition in episodic memory: Cognitive, emotional, and neural processes. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 1047-1054.
Bäumel, K. T., & Samenieh, A. (2012a). Influences of part-list cuing on different forms of episodic forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 366-375.
Bäumel, K. T., & Samenieh, A. (2012b). Selective memory retrieval can impair and improve retrieval of other memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 488-494.
Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2005). On the role of verbalization during task set selection:Switching or serial order control? Memory &Cognition, 33(4), 611-623.
Cole, S. M., Reysen, M. B., & Kelley, M. R. (2013). Part-set cuing facilitation for spatial information. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition. DOI:10.1030/a0032424.
Cooper, R., & Shallice, T. (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activities. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 297-338.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-185.
Craik, F. I. M., & Rose, N. S. (2012). Memory encoding and aging: A neurocognitive perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1729-1739.
Davidson, D. J., Zacks, R. T., & Williams, C. C. (2003). Stroop interference, practice, and aging. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 10(2), 85-98.
Kelly, M. R., & Bovee, J. C. (2007). Part-set cuing and order retention. Advances in Psychology Research, 51, 133-148.
Kundey, S. M. A., De Los Reyes, A., Rowan, J. D., Lee, B., Delise, J., Molina, S., & Cogdill, L. (2013). Involvement of working memory in college students’ sequential pattern learning and performance. Learning and Motivation, 44, 114-126.
Li, K. Z. H., Blair, M., & Chow, V. S. M. (2010). Sequential performance in young and older adults: Evidence of chunking and inhibition. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition:A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development, 17(3), 270-295.
Li, K. Z. H., & Dupuis, K. (2008). Attentional switching in the sequential flanker task: Age, location, and time course effects. Acta Psychologica, 127, 416-427.
Li, K. Z. H., Lindenberger, U., Rünger, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2000). The role of inhibition in the regulation of sequential action. Psychological Science, 11, 343-347.
Logan, G. D. (2004). Working memory, task switching, and executive control in the task span procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 218-236.
Matson, P. S., & Fournier, L. R. (2008). An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus, but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 36(7), 1236-1247.
Maylor, E. A., & Henson, R. N. A. (2000). Aging and the Ranschburg effect: No evidence of reduced response suppression in old age. Psychology and Aging, 15, 657-670.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Henry Holt.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Cowan, N., Klib, A., & Chen, Z. (2007). Age-related differences in immediate serial recall: Dissociating chunk formation and capacity. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 724-737.
Schneider, D., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Hierarchical control of cognitive processes: Switching tasks in sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 135, 623-640.
Schneider, D., & Logan, G. D. (2007). Retrieving information from a hierarchical plan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1076-1091.
Troyer, A., & Rich, J. B. (2002). Psychometric properties of a new metamemory questionnaire for older adults. The Journal of Gerontology, 57B, 19-27.
Verhaeghen, P., & Cerella, J. (2002). Aging, executive control, and attention: A review of meta-analyses. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 26, 849-857.
Woodruff-Pak, D. S. (1997). Neuropsychology of Aging: Understanding Aging. Oxford, England: Blackwell.