Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychol Rev. 2014 Aug 15;24(3):332–354. doi: 10.1007/s11065-014-9266-5

Table 1.

Studies examining recollection and familiarity differences between healthy young and older adults

Young Adults Older Adults Effect Size d
Study R>.6 Estimation
Method		 Material
Type		 n R
(prob.)		 F
(prob.)		 n R
(prob.)		 F
(prob.)		 R F
Anderson et al. (2008) Yes PD Verbal 25 0.86 0.44 44 0.76 0.48 −0.56 0.30
Angel et al. (2013) No RK Nonverbal 20 0.40 0.55 20 0.31 0.61 −0.72 0.43
Bastin and Van der Linden (2003) No RK Nonverbal 64 0.35 0.42 64 0.24 0.42 – –
Bastin et al. (2004) No RK Nonverbal 48 0.44 0.82 48 0.26 0.74 – –
Belleville et al. (2011)a No RK Verbal/Nonverbal 29 – – 29 – – −0.66 −1.04
Benjamin and Craik (2001) – Exp. 2 No PD Verbal 18 0.58 0.42 34 0.38 0.53 – –
Boywitt et al. (2012) – Exp. 1 No RK Verbal 40 0.50 0.46 41 0.38 0.41 – –
Boywitt et al. (2012) – Exp. 2 No RK Verbal 44 0.31 0.27 44 0.23 0.20 – –
Bugaiska et al. (2007) No RK Verbal 24 0.28 0.35 24 0.15 0.28 – –
Bunce (2003) No RK Verbal 44 0.47 0.69 52 0.35 0.63 – –
Bunce and Macready (2005) No RK Verbal 52 0.54 0.54 52 0.47 0.48 – –
Clarys et al. (2002) No RK Verbal 27 0.22 0.28 55 0.14 0.30 – –
Clarys et al. (2009) No RK Verbal 44 0.37 0.43 44 0.27 0.36 – –
Cohn et al. (2008) – Exp. 1 No PD Verbal 24 0.48 0.21 24 0.25 0.30 −1.07 0.18
Comblain et al. (2004) No RK Nonverbal 20 0.54 0.47 20 0.29 0.29 – –
Daselaar et al. (2006) No ROC Verbal 12 0.40 0.36 12 0.20 0.46 −0.72 0.34
Davidson and Glisky (2002) No PD Verbal 32 0.40 0.84 48 0.21 0.69 −0.69 −0.69
Duarte et al. (2006) No RK Nonverbal 18 0.55 0.36 24 0.44 0.24 −0.95 −0.61
Duarte et al. (2008) No RK Nonverbal 17 0.51 0.58 27 0.49 0.46 – –
Düzel et al. (2011) No ROC Nonverbal 24 0.27 0.27 56 0.17 0.17 −0.72 −1.24
Friedman et al. (2010) No RK Nonverbal 18 0.31 0.41 17 0.19 0.24 −0.88 −1.06
Glanzer et al. (2004) – Exp. 5 No ROC Verbal 42 0.46 0.34 24 0.29 0.29 – –
Harkins et al. (1979) No ROC Verbal 8 0.44 0.27 16 0.27 0.18 – –
Healy et al. (2005) – Exp. 1d No ROC Verbal 59 0.41 0.44 60 0.28 0.51 −0.67 0.31
Healy et al. (2005) – Exp. 2d No ROC Verbal 31 0.47 0.50 33 0.34 0.48 −0.65 −0.08
Healy et al. (2005) – Exp. 3d No ROC Verbal 25 0.37 0.58 36 0.32 0.48 −0.29 −0.29
Howard et al. (2006) No ROC Nonverbal 43 0.30 0.22 33 0.25 0.24 −0.57 0.36
Jacoby (1999) –Exp.4 No PD Verbal 24 0.56 0.39 48 0.29 0.33 −0.97a 0b,c,d
Jennings and Jacoby (1993) – Exp. 1 Yes PD Verbal 24 0.60 0.14 24 0.25 0.10 −1.52a 0b,d
Jennings and Jacoby (1993) –Exp.2 No PD Verbal 16 0.42 0.63 16 0.25 0.60 −1.02a 0b,c,d
Jennings and Jacoby (1997) – Exp. 2 Yes PD Verbal 24 0.87 0.60 24 0.59 0.54 – –
Kapucu et al. (2008) No ROC Verbal 22 0.29 0.23 23 0.30 0.22 – –
Kilb & Naveh-Benjamin (2011) No RK Nonverbal 25 0.54 0.70 26 0.29 0.70 – –
Luo and Craik (2009) –Exp.1 No PD Verbal 32 0.27 0.09 32 0.03 −0.05 – –
Luo and Craik (2009) – Exp. 2 No PD Verbal 24 0.40 −0.02 24 0.27 −0.02 – –
Luo et al. (2007) – Exp. 1 No PD Verbal 32 0.53 0.38 32 0.21 0.37 −0.86 0.16d,f
Luo et al. (2007) – Exp. 2A No PD Verbal 27 0.44 0.36 27 0.31 0.41 −0.47 0.24d
Luo et al. (2007) – Exp. 2B No PD Verbal 18 0.54 0.32 18 0.42 0.36 −0.59 0.18d
Luo et al. (2007) – Exp. 2C No PD Verbal 32 0.44 0.39 32 0.31 0.54 −0.57 0.74d
McCabe and Geraci (2009) – Exp. 1 (RK Group) No RK Verbal 36 0.29 0.27 36 0.24 0.26 −0.53 −0.10d
McCabe and Geraci (2009) – Exp. 1 (AB Group) No RK Verbal 37 0.38 0.33 36 0.25 0.31 −0.90 −0.35d
McCabe and Geraci (2009) –Exp.2 No RK Verbal 38 0.30 0.34 34 0.22 0.34 −0.46 0.03d
McCabe et al. (2009) No RK Verbal 67 0.32 0.35 68 0.23 0.32 −0.92 −0.27d
Morcom et al. (2010) No RK Verbal 15 0.36 0.32 12 0.29 0.30 −0.66 0b
Norman and Schacter (1997) – Exp. 1 (Exp. Group) No RK Verbal 12 0.52 0.48 12 0.46 0.34 – –
Norman and Schacter (1997) – Exp. 1 (No Exp. Group) No RK Verbal 12 0.53 0.48 12 0.45 0.40 – –
Parkin and Walter (1992) –Exp.1 No RK Verbal 20 0.51 0.49 20 0.18 0.49 – –
Parkin and Walter (1992) –Exp.2 No RK Verbal 30 0.36 0.65 60 0.14 0.54 – –
Parks (2007) – Exp. 1 No RK Verbal 51 0.41 0.51 41 0.27 0.37 −0.74 −0.86
Parks (2007) – Exp. 2 Yes ROC Verbal 72 0.61 0.51 72 0.46 0.42 −0.95a −0.52b
Perfect and Dasgupta (1997) Yes RK Verbal 20 0.72 0.59 40 0.39 0.34 – –
Perfect et al. (1995) –Exp.1 No RK Verbal 22 0.48 0.44 22 0.11 0.61 – –
Perfect et al. (1995) – Exp. 2a (Deep Encoding) Yes RK Verbal 12 0.67 0.90 12 0.67 0.25 – –
Perfect et al. (1995) – Exp. 2a (Shallow Encoding) No RK Verbal 12 0.40 0.55 12 0.31 0.25 – –
Perfect et al. (1995) –Exp.2b Yes RK Verbal 12 0.87 0.81 12 0.22 0.44 – –
Peters and Daum (2008) Yes RK Verbal 22 0.61 0.55 23 0.36 0.32 −1.10 −0.83
Prull et al. (2006) No RK/PD/ROC Verbal 36 0.45 0.41 36 0.19 0.37 −1.28 −0.49
Schacter et al. (1997) – Exp. 1 Yes RK Verbal 32 0.78 0.28 32 0.65 0.16 – –
Schacter et al. (1997) – Exp. 2 No RK Verbal 16 0.58 0.43 16 0.24 0.10 – –
Skinner and Fernandes (2008) No RK Verbal 30 0.32 0.43 30 0.26 0.33 −0.24 −0.79
Skinner and Fernandes (2009a) –Exp.1 No RK Verbal 15 0.45 0.29 15 0.34 0.14 −0.55 −0.71
Skinner and Fernandes (2009a) –Exp.2 No RK Verbal 16 0.49 0.20 16 0.46 0.12 −0.16 −0.28
Skinner and Fernandes (2009b) No RK Verbal 24 0.48 0.45 24 0.38 0.65 – –
Toth and Parks (2006) – Easy Group No PD Verbal 36 0.33 0.40 36 0.15 0.32 −0.88 −0.76
Toth and Parks (2006) – Hard Group No PD Verbal 36 0.05 0.52 36 0.01 0.36 −0.40 −1.19
Tse et al. (2010) Yes PD Verbal 30 0.78 0.66 105 0.63 0.77 – –
Wang et al. (2012) No RK Verbal 23 0.35 0.67 21 0.22 0.49 −1.26b −1.34b
Wolk et al. (2013) Yes PD Verbal 17 0.60 0.75 50 0.36 0.82 −1.49 0.37

The recollection (R) and familiarity (F) estimates under the Young Adults and Older Adults headings refer to the probability (prob.) estimates derived from the Yonelinas (2002) method whereby R and F are calculated based on the average data reported in the study (see Supplemental Material for details). The n under these headings refers to the number of young and older adults in the study. The reported effects sizes for R and F are the uncorrected values calculated for each sample. The small-sample bias correction was applied to these effect sizes in the analysis reported in the main text. RK Remember-Know; PD Process Dissociation; ROC Receiver-Operating Characteristic

a

The probability estimates for recollection and familiarity could not be reliably calculated from the data reported

b

Effect size estimate based on t- or F-statistic

c

Group difference reported as non-significant, and effect size estimate set to 0

d

Subtracted the average false alarm rate from familiarity post hoc before calculating the effect size (see main text for details)

e

Two ROC estimates of recollection (i.e., Ro and Rn) were derived from an associative recognition task. The Ro measure was selected to compute the recollection effect size estimate because this is analogous to old/new discrimination in item recognition tests

f

The discrepancy between the age-related differences in the probability estimates of recollection and familiarity and the effect size measures is likely due to the former being calculated based on average data and the latter based on individual means and variance measures reported in the paper