Boppverhaeghen 2005

Span and Aging Meta-Analysis
1
Running Head: MEMORY SPAN AND AGING META-ANALYSIS
Aging and Verbal Memory Span: A Meta-Analysis
Kara L. Bopp and Paul Verhaeghen
Syracuse University
2
Abstract
This meta-analysis provides a quantitative examination of age differences in eight verbal span
tasks using Brinley analyses. The main conclusions are: (a) There are age differences in all
verbal span tasks; (b) the data support the conclusion that working memory span is more age-
sensitive than short-term memory span; and (c) there is a linear relationship between span of
younger adults and span of older adults. A linear model indicates the presence of three distinct
functions, in increasing order of size of age effects: (1) simple storage span; (2) backward digit
span; and (3) working memory span.

3
Aging and Verbal Memory Span: A Meta-Analysis
In this article, we provide a meta-analysis of the effects of adult age on verbal short-term
memory and verbal working memory span tasks, using graphical analysis on the original span
metric.
Memory span
Span tasks are a popular measure in cognitive psychology and neuropsychological
testing. Two types of tasks can be distinguished: short-term memory span and working memory
span.
Measures of short-term memory include forward digit span (Wechsler, 1955; 1981), letter
span (Kinsbourne, 1974; Taub, 1975), and word span (Baddeley, 1986; Talland, 1965). In each of
these a series of stimuli (digits, letters, or words, respectively) is presented, visually or auditorily,
typically at the rate of one stimulus per second. The task of the participant is to repeat the stimuli
in the order they were presented. Testing usually begins with a series length of two stimuli and
increases by one after two trials. Testing ends when a participant is incorrect on two trials of the
same length. Span can be calculated in a number of ways, including the total number of words
recalled, proportion of words per set, number of words in correct trials, or as the longest series
correctly recalled. The current study includes both the final scoring method, because this is the
method overall most frequently used, and the WAIS/WAIS-R method for scoring, which is
frequently used in digit span measures. (Note that in the Results section, we explicitly test for
differences between these methods, to ascertain that method effects do not influence the results.)
Beginning in the 1980’s, working memory span measures were introduced into the
literature. Working memory refers to the dynamic relationship between passive storage and active
manipulation or transformation of information held in memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974;

4
Miyake & Shah, 1999; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Miyake, Friedman, Emerson,
Witzki, Howerter, & Wagner, 2000; Oberauer, Süβ, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2000). An
important feature of the model is the system’s limited capacity, which forces the resources to be
shared between storage and processing. Working memory span measures such as reading span
(Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), listening span (Babcock & Salthouse, 1990; Salthouse &
Babcock, 1991), sentence span (an average of reading and listening span; Morrow, Menard,
Stine-Morrow, Teller, & Bryant, 2001), and computation span (Babcock & Salthouse, 1990;
Salthouse & Babcock, 1991) capture this interaction between concurrent storage and online
processing. Reading span requires participants to read sets of sentences while remembering the
last word of each sentence. Participants are sometimes asked to answer a question about the
sentences in true/false or multiple-choice format. Listening span task requires participants to
listen to sentences and answer a simple question about the sentence, while remembering the last
word of each sentence. Scores on listening span and reading span are sometimes averaged into a
measure of sentence span. In computation span, a series of arithmetic problems is presented to
participants to solve while the participants must also remember the last digit from each problem.
Typically, in these working memory span tasks, three sets of trials are given for each span length.
As with the short-term memory span tasks, the current study only examines span as measured by
the longest series that is correctly recalled.
In cognitive aging research, a further distinction is often made within short-term span
tasks (Craik, 1986; Gregoire & Van der Linden, 1997; Myerson, Emery, White, & Hale, 2003).
Mere storage tasks, such as forward digit span, are distinguished from tasks requiring short-term
memory reordering, such as backward digit span and alphabet span. In backward digit span a
series of digits is presented auditorily, and the subject’s task is to repeat the digits in reverse
5
order (Wechsler 1955; 1981). Reordering span tasks differ from short-term memory tasks proper
in that the item manipulation presents a task requirement that goes beyond mere storage. While
both working memory span tasks and reordering span tasks require processing and storage, the
type of processing differs. It is likely that reordering tasks differ from working memory span
tasks in that item processing occurs after all items have been stored given that the presentation
time is too fast for it to occur on-line. The current study only examines backward digit span due
to a lack of studies utilizing other reordering span tasks. Note that the tradition in the
psychometric literature (most notably Wechsler, 1955) is to add scores for forward and backward
digit span to obtain a single span for short-term memory. Only studies that provided separate
scores were used in the current analysis.
Memory span and aging: Developmental theory
Age differences in memory span measures are expected by most extant theories of
cognitive aging. In fact, the concepts of age-related deficits in short-term memory and/or
working memory, more notably in attentional/executive working memory control (Baddeley,
1986, Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2000; Miyake,
Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter, & Wagner, 2000) have been invoked as a mechanism to
explain age-related declines in a wide variety of tasks of fluid cognition, either as a direct causal
mechanism (e.g., Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Mayr & Kliegl, 1993), or as a mediator between a
rather general decrease in processing resources and higher-order cognition (e.g., Salthouse,
1996).
Many aging theories also predict larger age-related effects for working memory span than
for short-term memory span. First, processing resource theories (e.g., Belleville, Rouleau, &
Caza, 1998; Craik, Morris, & Gick, 1988; Dobbs & Rule, 1989; Foos, 1989; Light, Zelinski &
6
Moore, 1982; Salthouse, Babcock, & Shaw, 1991) state that aging depletes the cognitive
resources available for processing. The concomitant expectation is that working memory tasks,
with their demands on both processing and storage, will yield larger age effects than short-term
memory tasks, which require mere storage.
Second, theories focusing on coordinative task requirements (e.g., Mayr & Kliegl, 1993),
predict larger age differences in working memory span than short-term memory span, because
working memory tasks require the coordination of concurrent storage and processing demands, a
demand absent in short-term memory tasks. Coordination theory furthermore predicts that span
tasks can be separated into distinct categories namely tasks that do and do not require
coordination, with step functions in the observed age differences.
Third, the speed theory of cognitive aging (Salthouse, 1996) predicts that age-related
slowing of computational processes will cause a decrease in short-term memory/working
memory span, either because items are not encoded sufficiently well (Salthouse’s ‘limited-time
mechanism’), or – in the case of working memory tasks – because items that are stored away in a
temporary visual or verbal buffer might have decayed from that buffer by the time they are
needed for subsequent processing (Salthouse’s ‘simultaneity mechanism’). Statistically
controlling for speed has indeed been found to reduce the magnitude of age-related differences in
short-term memory/working memory performance (Salthouse, 1991; Verhaeghen & Salthouse,
1997). The speed theory would predict age differences in mere storage tasks (where the limited-
time mechanism operates), and larger age differences still in tasks requiring concurrent
processing and storage (governed by both the limited-time and simultaneity mechanism). The
existence of a simultaneity mechanism would furthermore lead to the prediction that tasks
7
requiring reordering (such as backward digit span) yield larger age differences than simple
storage spans.
Fourth, the inhibition theory of cognitive aging (Hasher & Zacks, 1988) states that an
age-related breakdown in inhibitory control leads to an increase in the number of simultaneously
active messages, thereby effectively shrinking the size of short-term memory/ working memory.
With regard to span measures, Hasher and colleagues have suggested that working memory tasks
require successful management of previous information, that is, that in order to be successful on
a span task it is necessary to effectively inhibit stimuli from previous sets (Chiappe, Hasher, &
Siegel, 2000; Lustig, May, & Hasher, 2001; May, Hasher, & Kane, 1999). Therefore, the
inhibition theory would predict that span tasks with repeated information should yield larger age
differences. Consequently, forward digit span and letter span should be more age-sensitive than
word span. Also, tasks that use similar stimuli for storage and processing (i.e., reading span,
listening span, sentence span, computation span) would be expected to yield larger age
differences than tasks that use different stimuli for storage and processing (i.e., operation span).
It should be noted that the status of expected age differences in span measures requiring
reordering (backward digit span) is somewhat unclear. It seems that most developmental theories
(with the exception of the coordination theory) would expect that age differences in these tasks
fall somewhere in between the smaller effect on short-term memory span and the larger effect on
working memory span. While some would place backward digit span closer to working memory
span due to the requirement of effortful processing (Lezak, 1995), others consider it closer to
short-term memory tasks due to it’s similarity to forward digit span (Wechsler, 1955).
All four theories, therefore, agree that age differences should be larger for working
memory span than for short-term memory span. The coordination theory is the only theory that
8
does not assume that age differences should emerge in simple storage tasks, although it is not
incompatible with that result. A few predictions, however, are theory-specific: the inhibition
theory is the only theory that makes a clear distinction between the types of items used for recall;
the coordination theory has an all-or-none character claimed by none of the other theories.
The meta-analysis
In the present meta-analysis we extend the findings of the two previously published meta-
analyses (Verhaeghen et al., 1993; Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997). Those meta-analyses focused
on effect sizes (i.e., mean standardized differences between younger and older adults or age-by-
span correlations) for broad classes of short-term memory and working memory tasks. Our
analysis involves a more detailed examination of most verbal span measures. The emphasis is on
graphical analysis (see Cerella, Poon, & Williams, 1980, for an early example), that is, span data
were compiled and used to construct a Brinley plot, which displays performance of older adults
on a given span task as a function of performance of younger adults on the same task. This
allows for the examination of span scores in their original metric. The current graphical analysis
allows for examination of variability and consistency across studies utilizing span tasks. In the
context of aging research, Brinley plots have been used to test (and account) for a mathematical
relation between performance of older and younger adults. Very often, it is found that average
performance of a group of older adults can be predicted reliably from the average performance of
a group of younger adults across tasks that measure similar types of processing (e.g., Cerella,
1990; Cerella, Poon, & Williams, 1980; Myerson, Hale, Wagstaff, Poon, 1990; Verhaeghen,
2000; Verhaeghen & Cerella, 2002; Verhaeghen & Marcoen, 1993; Verhaeghen et al., 2002). The
number of mathematical functions needed to adequately explain the data are taken to be an
indication of the number of age-related mechanisms involved (Dunn & Kirsner, 1988).
9
It should be noted that, typically, Brinley plots are derived from a wide variety of tasks or
of experimental manipulations (e.g., Cerella, 1994; Verhaeghen, 2000), leading to a wide range
of values on the x-axis. This is not the case for the Brinley analysis performed here: The
difficulty range on the abscissa is presumably generated by minor variations in procedure and by
sampling differences, rather than by careful manipulation of task characteristics. In addition, the
restricted range of span scores might lead to an underestimation of the true young-old
correlations. Also note that although explicit mathematical models exist to explain age effects
and task effects in the context of latency data (e.g., Cerella, 1990; Verhaeghen, 2000; Verhaeghen
& Cerella, 2002), no analytical models have been constructed to deal with age and task effects in
the present context, that of memory span. Therefore, the analyses presented here are primarily
bottom-up, that is, our interpretation of and explanation for age and task effects is built ad hoc
from an examination of the best-fitting linear models.
Method
Sample of studies
Studies were collected by consulting the PsycINFO electronic database, using keywords
such as ‘memory span’ and ‘working memory’. In addition, because many studies on cognition
and aging report span measures as part of the descriptive information about their samples, we
manually examined a sizeable proportion of articles contained in the main journals in the field,
namely Psychology and Aging (volume 1(1) – 17(3)), Journals of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences (volume 36(1) – 57B(3)), The Gerontologist (volume 26(6) – 42(5)), and Aging,
Neuropsychology, and Cognition (volume 1(1) – 9(2)). The reason for not manually searching
older volumes of the Journals of Gerontology and The Gerontologist was the relative lack of
prevalence of articles examining span in these journals. References cited in selected studies and
10
in review papers were used to identify additional studies. All studies were included that (a)
compared a younger (mean age < 30 years old) versus an older (mean age < 60 years old) adult
sample, both groups free of any cognitive problems; and (b) assessed participants on at least one
memory span task. Data collection was concluded in November 2002.
The resulting database includes 123 studies, contained in 104 articles of memory span
and aging. Several studies contained more than one span task. The data set includes 64 studies of
forward digit span, 5 studies of letter span, 13 studies of word span, 57 studies of backwards
digit span, 28 studies of reading span, 12 studies of listening span, 10 studies of sentence span
(reading and listening span data combined), and 14 studies of computation span. The mean age
reported of the younger adults in the articles ranged from 16 to 29 years old (M = 21.2, SD = 2.4)
and ranged from 60.7 to 77.8 years old for older adults (M = 70.1, SD = 2.84). The age
difference between the younger and older adults averaged across all studies had M = 48.8, SD =
3.9. All articles are listed in the reference section, marked with an asterisk. Given the large
sample of studies, we decided not to include the full tabulation of spans by study in the article.
Interested readers can obtain this tabulation under the form of an Excel spreadsheet from either
author.
Brinley Analysis
In Brinley analysis, performance of older adults is plotted as a function of performance of
younger adults (Brinley, 1965; Cerella, Poon, & Williams, 1980). In Brinley space, the diagonal
represents the same score for younger and older adults, or no age difference. In the reaction time
literature, several explicit models have been advanced to explain the shape and parameters of
young-old functions (for an overview, see Cerella, 1990). The relevant interpretable shapes
include a linear function, a power function through the origin (the information-loss model), and a
11
quadratic function through the origin with a linear coefficient fixed at unity (the overhead
model). In the present analysis, we decided to only fit linear models, mainly because the
rationales behind the nonlinear models are specific to reaction times, and do not generalize easily
to accuracy. The Brinley analyses were conducted using the weighted least squares algorithm,
weighting for sample size.
Initial Brinley model runs were found to be suspect (viz., small R2s and unusual
parameter values); therefore an outlier analysis using leverage values and Cook’s d was
conducted. For this analysis, we regressed span of older adults on span of younger adults for
each of the three task types (simple storage, reordering, and working memory) separately. Three
data points were identified and removed as outliers from all further analyses. The Cook’s d
values were 1.89 for forward digit span (younger: 9.9, older: 7.8) in Kemper and Sumner (2001),
1.45 for backward digit span (younger: 8.2, older: 5.4) in Kemper and Sumner (2001), and 0.01
for backward digit span (younger: 10.6, older: 8.3) in Fisk, Cooper, Hertzog, Anderson-Garlach,
& Lee (1995). The three studies leverage values were 0.15, 0.08, 0.39, respectively. No obvious
aspects of methodology or subject sampling differentiated these studies from the studies that
remained in the analysis, but we note that the span scores reported for younger adults in each of
these studies is unusually large.
Results
Figure 1 shows the plot of mean span scores of older adults as a function of mean span
scores of younger adults (k = 203). Descriptive statistics on these means are provided in Table 1.
Prior to the full Brinley analysis, we conducted one preliminary analysis to check for method
effects. In this analysis, we compared data from the same types of span tasks, forward digit span
and backward digit span, using different methods, namely: (a) the WAIS versions prior to the
12
1981 WAIS-R (k = 17 and 14, for forward digit span and backward digit span, resp.); (b) the
1981 WAIS revision (WAIS-R; k = 15 and 13, resp.); and (c) other methods not disclosed in the
article (k = 30 and 30, resp.). A Brinley plot of the data is provided in Figure 2. As can be seen,
the different methods yield overlapping clouds of data points. One single line sufficed for
forward digit span (R2 = .72; when separate intercepts and slopes for each of the three methods
were entered, ∆R2 = .013; incremental F(4,56) = 0.69, ns). A single line fit the data quite well for
backward digit span (R2 = .78); there were, however, significant differences between methods
(when separate intercepts and slopes for each of the three methods were entered, ∆R2 = .061;
incremental F(4,53) = 4.94, p < .05). The WAIS version of backward digit span separated from
the other two methods. For the WAIS version, the intercept was –0.02 (SE = 0.71) and the slope
was 0.88 (SE = 0.16); the common line for the two other backward digit span methods had an
intercept of 1.89 (SE = 0.31) and a slope of 0.59 (SE = 0.05). The suggestion is that there are no
age differences on backward digit span when measured by the WAIS (the line is statistically
indistinguishable from the diagonal); age differences do emerge when the WAIS-R and other
methods are being used. The number of data-points obtained from studies using the WAIS is
quite small; therefore, we decided not to split the backward digit span measures into subgroups.
Rather, as a control analysis, all Brinley regression analyses reported below were repeated
omitting the WAIS data from the backward digit span pool. This did not change the pattern of the
results.
Model fitting was done incrementally, that is, we started off with a baseline comparison
model (Model 1), assuming that a single regression line suffices to capture the age differences.
Subsequent models (Models 2-3) refined this analysis in a nested fashion, by allowing different
intercepts and slopes for different types of span tasks.

13
The baseline model (Model 1) assesses the fit of a single linear regression line.
spanolder = a + b spanyounger. (1)
This model fits the data quite well (R2 = .90). The estimated slope was 1.02 (SE = 0.02) and the
estimated intercept -0.87 (SE = 0.14). The intercept was significantly different from 0; the slope
was not significantly different from 1. This line, then, is parallel to the diagonal, suggesting that,
regardless of the nature of the span task, older adults retain about 1 item less than younger adults.
The mean span score (weighted for sample size) is 5.61 for younger adults, and 4.87 for older
adults.
The second model (Model 2) separates short-term memory tasks (i.e., forward digit span,
backward digit span, word span, and letter span; k = 139) from working memory tasks (i.e.,
computation span, listening span, reading span, and sentence span; k = 64), by allowing distinct
intercepts and slopes for these two sets of tasks. The intercepts were not found to be significant
so the model was run without intercepts. Compared to a single regression line without a constant
(R2 = .985), the second model separating short-term memory and working memory tasks fit
significantly better (R2 = .991; ∆R2 = .006; incremental F(1, 201) = 131.65, p < .05). The slope
was found to equal 0.92 (SE = 0.01) for the short-term memory tasks, and 0.74 (SE = .02) for the
working memory tasks. For both regression lines, the slopes were reliably smaller than 1. The
mean span scores for older adults on the short-term memory span tasks were 6.03 and 3.01 on
the working memory span tasks. For younger adults, these numbers were 6.59 and 4.03,
respectively.
In our third model (Model 3), we separated backwards span scores (k = 57) from the
short-term memory measures requiring simple storage (k = 82), while still keeping working
memory separate. The intercepts for short-term memory and working memory were still not
14
found to be significant, so the model was run with only an intercept for backward span. This
third model fits the data significantly better than Model 2 (R2 = .991; ∆R2 = .000; incremental
F(2, 199) = 3.15, p < .05). For the simple storage tasks, the slope equals 0.92 (SE = 0.01). For
backward digit span, the intercept equals 0.76 (SE =0.35) and the slope equals 0.78 (SE = 0.07).
For the working memory tasks, the slope equals 0.74 (SE = 0.02). All slopes, with the exception
of the slope for simple storage tasks, are significantly smaller than 1. The intercept for backward
digit span is significantly larger than 0. Additional splits of the data were considered, but did not
yield significant improvements in model fit.1 This third model then provides the best empirical
account of the data. It is shown in Figure 1, overlaid on the data.
Discussion
The present meta-analysis supports four main conclusions: (a) There are age differences
in all aspects of memory span; (b) there is a mathematical relationship between span of younger
adults and span of older adults; (c) working memory span is more age-sensitive than short-term
memory span; (d) backward digit span is more age-sensitive than short-term memory span, but
less than working memory span.
Reliable age differences in all span tasks
In our Brinley analysis, we found evidence for three groupings of age effects on the
temporary memory buffer (see below). Age effects were significant in all three groupings, as
indicated by intercepts smaller than 0, slopes smaller than 1, or both. Moreover, only 16 out of
the 203 studies included in the Brinley analysis showed a positive age effect (i.e., a higher mean
for older than younger adults). Nine of these were in forward digit span, six in backward digit
span, and one from the reading span task. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the existence
of negative age differences in verbal span measures.

15
We note one potential method effect: data gathered using the WAIS and showed a smaller
age deficit in backward digit span than data gathered using other methods, including the later
WAIS-R version. It is unclear what accounts for this effect. It is possible that sampling
differences or cohort effects play a role. It should be noted that approximately 50% of the studies
did not report the methodology used to obtain forward and backward digit span scores, and
therefore true methodological differences could not be tested in the current study.
The mathematical relation between span of older adults and span of younger adults
The Brinley analysis demonstrates that there is a mathematical relation between span of
older adults and span of younger adults. It can be captured well by a linear model. About 93% of
the variance in older adults’ mean span length can be explained by knowing (a) younger adults’
mean span length; and (b) the nature of the task (i.e., whether it concerns a simple storage short-
term memory task, a backward digit span task, or a working memory task). Young adults’ mean
span alone (i.e., without the task type specification) explained 90% of the variance. Such strong
mathematical relations are typically taken as evidence that age differences are quantitative rather
than qualitative (e.g., Cerella, 1994; Cerella et al., 1980; Verhaeghen, 2000). That is, it suggests
that, within each of the three groupings, span of older adults is tightly tied to span of younger
adults, and that whatever variations in procedure and stimuli drives span differences in younger
adults will result in similar effects in older adults.
The linear function is characterized by an intercept that is zero (for simple storage span
and working memory span) or positive (for backward digit span) and a slope smaller than 1. At
first blush, this model seems quite strange: The implication is that larger age differences are
observed for conditions that yield higher spans for younger adults, that is, the conditions that are
presumably easier. This implication goes against the complexity hypothesis (e.g., Cerella, et al.,
16
1980; Salthouse, 1991), which states that the more complex or more difficult tasks will yield the
larger age differences.
This apparent discrepancy with the literature becomes understandable if we interpret our
findings as follows: For simple storage span and for working memory span, older adults simply
lose a constant proportion of items, compared to younger adults. That proportion is indicated by
the slope of the linear function, that is, for simple storage span, older adults retain about 90% of
elements in working memory that younger adults can retain; for working memory span, this
proportion goes down to about 75%. The line for backward digit span can be explained as
deriving from a bipartite structure. That is, one interpretation of our findings is to consider the
line for backward span as bifurcating from the line for forward span. Inspection of Figure 1
suggests that the point of bifurcation is close to the point where younger adults retain about 4
items. After this point, age differences increase proportionally with the span of the young2. This
interpretation raises the intriguing possibility that the age deficits in backward digit span may be
related to the size of the focus of attention, which is often believed to be about 4 items (e.g.,
Cowan, 2001). The focus of attention is defined as the number of items held in working memory
that is immediately available and accessible for processing. The interpretation is then that the
size of the focus of attention changes little or not at all with aging; an additional assumption is
that reordering items within the focus of attention occurs at little cost. Specifically, in older
adults, the access processes within the focus of attention appear to be about 95% efficacious
compared to access processes in younger adults; larger age differences (75% relative efficacy)
only emerge when it becomes necessary to shunt items in and out of the focus of attention for
reordering.
17
The focus-of-attention interpretation might also explain why age differences are slight in
simple storage tasks: items can be retrieved without shunting, and why they are large in working
memory tasks: in such tasks the focus of attention may shrink to include one and only one item
(e.g., Garavan, 1998; McElree, 2001; Oberauer, 2002), which would necessitate shunting
operations for all items. If this explanation is correct, then age differences in all span tasks might
be explained by a single mechanism, namely the mechanism that drives the 75% information loss
for items stored outside the focus of attention. This could be the simultaneity mechanism of
cognitive slowing (Salthouse, 1996), or mechanisms related to age differences in volume and
activation of the prefrontal cortex (Park, Polk, Mikels, Taylor, & Marshuetz, 2001; Raz, 2000;
Reuter-Lorenz, et al, 2000; Rypma & D'Esposito, 2000). Circumstantial evidence for this model
would include demonstrations of the absence of age differences in retrievability of items within
the focus of attention coupled with an age deficit for availability of items outside the focus of
attention. At least two studies have obtained such results (Verhaeghen & Basak, in press;
Verhaeghen & Hoyer, in press).
Another unusual aspect of the model is that the positive intercept for backward digit span
implies that when the tasks are very difficult and very small span scores are obtained the line will
lie above the diagonal, that is, older adults will actually perform better than younger adults. One
should keep in mind, however, that these are empirical functions and that they are only defined
in the range from which they have been derived. Figure 1 shows that, for each of the task
families, only a few data points actually fall in the span range for which the curves would lie
above the diagonal.

18
Working memory span is more age-sensitive than short-term memory span
The Brinley analysis shows confirmation of prior findings of an age-related dissociation
between simple storage span and working memory span. The former yields 95% relative
retention of items in older adults as compared to younger adults; while the latter yields 73%. It
should be noted that although mean span for short-term memory and working memory is quite
different, possibly complicating our Brinley analysis, there is a region on the abscissa, between
the span values of 4 and 6, where data are available for both short-term memory and working
memory measures. Inspection of Figure 1 shows that for that region, there is little overlap
between the data clouds for short-term memory and those for working memory measures. This
vertical spatial separation in a region of horizontal overlap can be taken as additional strong
evidence for the existence of distinct age effects on the two task types (Perfect, 1994).
The raw data show the same effect (Table 1): the average age difference in simple storage
spans combined (weighting for sample size) is 0.59 items; the average age difference in working
memory span is 1.02 items. Anomalies exist, however, at the level of individual tasks: reading
span, a working memory task, shows a small age deficit (0.63 items), whereas letter span, a
simple storage task, shows a large effect (0.97 items). The larger age deficit in letter span may be
due to increased susceptibility to interference with advancing age – many letters sound alike, and
the code of short-term memory for letters is primarily auditory. Reading span also yields the
lowest overall score, and the smaller age deficit in this measure might be caused simply by a
floor effect.
Age differences in backward digit span
The finding of a distinction between forward and backward digit span in the Brinley plot
should be appealing to those researchers that identify short-term memory and working memory
19
by task requirements: mere storage (forward digit span) versus reordering (backward digit span).
Previous findings comparing forward and backward digit span have yielded mixed results. In
agreement with the current findings, Sliwinski and Buschke (1999), in a longitudinal study, found
significant agerelated declines on the backwards digit span test, but failed to find age effects on
the forward digit span. Babcock and Salthouse (1990), in a metaanalysis (14 studies FS/BS), also
found slightly larger age differences for backward digit span compared to forward digit span. The
current result is, however, not in line with prior meta-analytic reports of equivalent effect sizes
for forward and backward digit span (Verhaeghen, Marcoen, & Goosens, 1993), nor with three
large-sample studies which likewise failed to find an increase in age difference between the
forward and backward digit span over the adult life span (Gregoire & Van der Linden, 1997;
Myerson, Emery, White, & Hale, 2003; Park et al., 2002)3.
Figure 1 suggests a possible source of this discrepancy. The age differences between
mere-storage spans and reordering spans is slight, and are only observed when the reordering
span task yields scores of 6 or higher for younger adults. Under typical conditions, in which
reordering span scores of younger adults are close to 6 (see Table 1) our model predicts that age
differences will not be observed. As such, the age difference in backward digit span (0.54) and
forward digit span (0.53) are not significantly different by examining averaged data.
Summary and outlook
In summary, we found that adult age differences are present in all span measures, that is,
in tasks requiring mere storage (short-term memory) as well as in tasks requiring storage and
processing (working memory). Simple storage span tasks yield smaller age effects than working
memory span tasks (this replicates results of earlier meta-analyses; Verhaeghen et al., 1993;
Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997), the age effects of reordering tasks (only backward digit span in
20
the current study) fall in between. These results are in line with most of the aging theories
described in the introduction. Inhibition theory, however, predicts larger age differences in
forward and backward digit span than in other mere storage tasks, and this was not the case
(Table 1). Coordination theory does not predict the observed dissociation between digit span
backward and digit span forward.

21
References
Articles used in the meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk; the type of span is indicated (FS =
forward digit span; LET = letter span; WS = word span; BS = backward digit span; AS =
alphabet span; CS = computation span; LS = listening span; RS = reading span; SS = sentence
span).
*Atchley, P., & Andersen, G. J. (1998). The effect of age, retinal eccentricity, and speed on the
detection of optic flow components. Psychology and Aging, 13, 297-308. FS BS
*Babcock, R. L, & Laguna, K. D. (1996). An examination of the adult age-related differences on
the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: A structural equations approach. Aging,
Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 3, 187-200. CS LS
*Babcock, R. L., & Salthouse, T. A. (1990). Effects of increased processing demands on age
differences in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 5, 421-428. FS CS
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation (vol. 8, pp. 47 – 90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
*Belleville, S., Rouleau, N., & Caza, N. (1998). Effect of normal aging on the manipulation of
information in working memory. Memory and Cognition, 26, 572-583. WS
Brinley, J. F. (1965). Rigidity and the control of cognitive sets in relation to speed and accuracy
of performance in the elderly. Dissertation Abstracts, 26, 1158-1159.
*Bromley, D. B. (1958). Some effects of age on short-term learning and remembering. Journal
of Gerontology, 13, 398-406. FS BS

22
*Bryan, J., & Luszcz, M. A. (1996). Speed of information processing as a mediator between age
and free-recall performance. Psychology and Aging, 11, 3-9. BS
*Burke, D. M., & Yee, P. L. (1984). Semantic priming during sentence processing by younger
and older adults. Developmental Psychology, 20, 903-910. FS BS
Carpenter, P., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1994). Working memory constraints in comprehension:
Evidence from individual differences, aphasia, and aging. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.)
Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp.1075 – 1112). New York: Academic Press.
Cerella, J. (1990). Aging and information processing rate. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.),
Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd. ed., pp. 201-221). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Cerella, J. (1994). Generalized slowing in Brinley plots. Journal of Gerontology, 49, P65-P71.
Cerella, J., Poon, L. W., & Williams, D. M. (1980). Age and the complexity hypothesis. In L.
Poon et al. (Eds.), Aging in the 1980’s (pp. 332-340). Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
*Cherry, K. E., & LeCompte, D. C. (1999). Age and individual differences influence prospective
memory. Psychology and Aging, 14, 60-76. FS BS
*Cherry, K. E., & Park, D. C. (1993). Individual differences and contextual variables influence
spatial memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 517-526. BS LS
*Cherry, K. E., & Stadler, M. A. (1995). Implicit learning of a nonverbal sequence in younger
and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 10, 379-394. BS
*Chiarello, C., & Hoyer, W. J. (1988). Adult age differences in implicit and explicit memory:
Time course and encoding effects. Psychology and Aging, 3, 358-366. FS BS

23
Chiappe, P., Hasher, L., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Working memory, inhibitory control, and reading
disability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 8-17.
*Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D. (1983). Age differences in performance on two information-
processing tasks: Strategy selection and processing efficiency. Journal of Gerontology,
38, 447-454. FS
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. (1986). A functional account of age differences in memory. In F. Klix & H.
Hagendorf (Eds.) Human Memory and Cognitive Capabilities: Mechanisms and
Performances (pp. 409-422). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North Holland.
Craik, F.I.M, & Jennings, J. (1992). Human Memory. In F. I. M. Craik, & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.)
Handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 51-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Craik, F. I. M., Morris, R. G., & Gick, M. L. (1990). Adult age differences in working memory.
In G. Vallar & T. Schallice (Eds.) Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory
(pp. 247-267). London: Cambridge University Press.
Craik, F. I. M., & Salthouse, T. A. (2000). The handbook of aging and cognition. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and
reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
Dobbs, A. R., & Rule, B. G. (1989). Adult age differences in working memory. Psychology and
Aging, 4, 500-503.
24
Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (1988). Discovering functionally independent mental processes: The
principle of reversed association. Psychological Review, 95, 91-101.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory
capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and
functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake, P. Shah (Eds.) Models of working
memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp.102-134).
*Ferris, S. H., Crook, T., Clark, E., McCarthy, M., Rae, D. (1980). Facial recognition memory
deficits in normal aging and senile dementia. Journal of Gerontology, 35, 707-714. FS
BS
*Fisk, A. D., Cooper, B. P., Hertzog, C., Anderson-Garlach, M. M., & Lee, M. D. (1995).
Understanding performance and learning in consistent memory search: An age-related
perspective. Psychology and Aging, 10, 255-268. BS
Foos, P. W. (1989). Adult age differences in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 4, 269-
275.
*Frieske, D. A., & Park, D. C. (1993). Effects of organization and working memory on age
differences in memory for scene information. Experimental Aging Research, 19, 321-
332. CS
Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 263-276.
*Gick, M. L., Craik, F. I. M., & Morris, R. G. (1988). Task complexity and age differences in
working memory. Memory and Cognition, 16, 353-361. WS RS
*Gould, O. N., McDonald-Miszczak, L., & Gregory, J. (1999). Prediction accuracy and
medication instructions: Will you remember tomorrow? Aging, Neuropsychology, and
Cognition, 6, 141-154. AS
25
*Grant, J. D., & Dagenbach, D. (2000). Further considerations regarding inhibitory processes,
working memory, and cognitive aging. American Journal of Psychology, 113, 69-94. CS
*Gregoire, J., & Van der Linden, M. (1997). Effects of age on forward and backward digit
spans. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 4, 140-149. FS BS
*Hartley, J. T. (1986). Reader and text variables as determinants of discourse memory in
adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 1, 150-158. RS
*Hartley, J. T. (1993). Aging and prose memory: Tests of resource-deficit hypothesis.
Psychology and Aging, 8, 538-551. RS
Hasher, L. & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a
new view. In G. Bower (Ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, (vol. 22, pp.
193-225). San Diego, CA,: Academic Press, Inc.
*Hertzog, C., Kidder, D. P., Powell-Moman, A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Aging and monitoring
associative learning: Is monitoring accuracy spared or impaired? Psychology and Aging,
17, 209-225. CS
*Hess, T. M. (1995). Aging and the impact of causal connections on text comprehension and
memory. Aging and Cognition, 2, 216-230. RS
*Hess, T. M., Flannigan, D. A., & Tate, C. S. (1993). Aging and memory for schematically and
taxinomically verbal materials. Journal of Gerontology, 48, P37-P44. RS
*Hess, T. M., & Tate, C. S. (1992). Direct and indirect assessments of memory for script-based
narratives in young and older adults. Cognitive Development, 7, 467-484. RS
*Howard, D. V., & Howard, J. H. (1989). Age differences in learning serial patterns: Direct
versus indirect measures. Psychology & Aging, 4, 357-364. BS

26
*Howard, D. V., & Howard, J. H. (1992). Adult-age differences in the rate of learning serial
patterns: Evidence from direct and indirect tests. Psychology and Aging, 7, 232-241. BS
*Hupet, M., Chantraine, Y., & Nef, F. (1993). References in conversation between young and
old normal adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 339-346. FS RS
*Inman, V. W. & Parkinson, S. R. (1983). Differences in Brown-Peterson recall as a function of
age and retention interval. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 58-64. LET
*Jenkins, L., Myerson, J., Joerding, J. A., & Hale, S. (2000). Converging evidence that
visuospatial cognition is more age-sensitive than verbal cognition. Psychology and
Aging, 15, 157-175. LET
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A. , & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention
view of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130,
169-183.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity,
executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637-671.
Kausler. D. H. (1991). Experimental psychology, cognition, and human aging (2nd ed.). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
*Kausler, D. H., & Puckett, J. M. (1979). Effects of word frequency on adult age differences in
word span. Experimental Aging Research, 5, 161-169. WS
*Kemper, S., & Kemtes, K. A. (1999). Aging and message production and comprehension. In
N. Schwarz, D. C. Park, et al (Eds.) Cognition, aging, and self-reports (pp. 229-244).
Hove, England: Psychology Press. FS BS LS

27
*Kemper, S., & Sumner, A. (2001). The structure of verbal abilities in younger and older adults.
Psychology and Aging, 16, 312-322. FS BS RS
*Kemper, S., Othick, M., Warren, J., Gubarchuk, J., et al. (1996). Facilitating older adults'
performance on a referential communication task through speech accommodations.
Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 3, 37-55. FS BS
*Kemper, S., Ferrell, P., Harden, T., Finter-Urczyk, A., & Billington, C. (1998). Use of
elderspeak by young and older adults to impaired and unimpaired listeners. Aging,
Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 5, 43-55. FS BS
*Kemper, S., Kynette, D., Rash, S., O’Brien, K., & Sprott (1989). Life-span changes to adults'
language: Effects of memory and genre. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 49-66. FS BS
*Kemtes, K. A., & Kemper, S. (1997). Younger and older adults’ on-line processing of
syntactically ambiguous sentences. Psychology and Aging, 12, 362-371. FS BS RS
*Kinsbourne, M. (1974). Cognitive deficit and the aging brain: A behavioral analysis.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 5, 41-49. LET
*Kramer, A., F., Larish, J. L., Weber, T. A., & Bardell, L. (1999). Training for executive control:
Task coordination strategies and aging. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.) Attention and
Performance XVII (pp. 617-652). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. FS BS
CS
*Lahar, C. J., Isaak, M. I., & McArthur, A. D. (2002). Age differences in the magnitude of the
attentional blink. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 8, 149-159. WS RS
*LaVoie, D. J., & Malmstrom, T. (1998). False recognition effects in young and older adults’
memory for text passages. Journal of Gerontology, 53B, P255-P262. FS BS

28
Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (Third Edition). NY: Oxford University
Press.
*Li, K. Z. H. (1999). Selection from working memory: On the relationship between processing
and storage components. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 6, 99-116. FS WS CS
Light, L. L. (1991). Memory and aging: Four hypotheses in search of data. Annual Review of
Psychology, 42, 333-376.
*Light, L. L., & Anderson, P. A. (1985). Working memory capacity, age, and memory for
discourse. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 737-747. FS BS WS RS
*Light, L. L., Kennison, R., Prull, M. W., La Voie, D., Zuellig, A. (1996). One-trial associative
priming of nonwords in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 11, 417-430. FS
BS
Light, L. L., Zelinski, E. M., & Moore, M. (1982). Adult age differences in reasoning from new
information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 8,
435-447.
*Lindenberger, U., Kliegl, R., & Baltes, P. B. (1992). Professional expertise does not eliminate
age differences in imagery-based memory performance during adulthood. Psychology
and Aging, 7, 585-593. FS BS
*Lindfield, K. C., Wingfield, A., & Bowles, N. L. (1994). Identification of fragmented pictures
under ascending versus fixed presentation in young and elderly adults: Evidence for the
inhibition-deficit hypothesis. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 1, 282-291. FS BS
Lustig, C., May, C. P., & Hasher, L. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive
interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 199-207.

29
*MacKay, D. G., & Abrams, L. (1998). Age-linked declines in retrieving orthographic
knowledge: Empirical, practical, and theoretical implications. Psychology and Aging,
13, 647-662. FS BS
*MacKay, D. G., Abrams, L., & Pedroza, M. J. (1999). Aging on the input versus output side:
Theoretical implications of age-linked asymmetries between detecting versus retrieving
orthographic information. Psychology and Aging, 14, 3-17. FS BS
*MacKay, D. G., Miller, M. D., & Schuster, S. P. (1994). Repetition blindness and aging:
Evidence for a binding deficit involving a single, theoretically specified connection.
Psychology and Aging, 9, 251-258. FS BS
*May, C. P., Hasher, L., & Kane, M. J. (1999). The role of interference in memory span.
Memory and Cognition, 27, 759-767. RS
Mayr, U. & Kliegl, R. (1993). Sequential and coordinative complexity: Age-based processing
limitations in figural transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1297-1320.
McElree, B. (2001). Working memory and focal attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory & Cognition, 27, 817-835
*McGinnis, D., & Zelinski, E. M. (2000). Understanding unfamiliar words: The influence of
processing resources, vocabulary knowledge, and age. Psychology and Aging, 15, 335-
350. RS
*Meguro, Y., Fujii, T., Yamadori, A., Tsukiura, T., Suzuki, K., Okuda, J., & Osaka, M. (2000).
The nature of age-related decline on the reading span task. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 391-398. RS

30
*Miller, L. M. S., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (1998). Aging and the effects of knowledge on on-
line reading strategies. Journal of Gerontology, 53B, P223-P233. RS
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000).
The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal
lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
Miyake, A., & Shaw, P. (1999). Toward unified theories of working memory: Emerging general
consensus, unresolved theoretical issues, and future research directions. In A. Miyake &
P. Shaw. NY (Eds.) Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and
Executive Control. NY: Cambridge University Press.
*Morrow, D. G., Leirer, V. O., Andrassy, J. M., Hier, C. M., & Menard, W. E. (1998). The
influence of list format and category headers on age differences in understanding
medication instructions. Experimental Aging Research, 24, 321-256. SS
Morrow, D. G., Menard, W. E., Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Teller, T., & Bryant, D. (2001). The
influence of expertise and task factors on age differences in pilot communication.
Psychology and Aging, 16, 31-46.
*Morrow, D. G., Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Leirer, V. O., Andrassy, J. M., & Kahn, J. (1997). The
role of reader age and focus of attention in creating situation models from narratives.
Journal of Gerontology, 52B, P73-P80. SS
Myerson, J., Emery, L. J., White, D. A., & Hale, S. (2003). Effects of age, domain, and
processing demands on memory span: Evidence for differential decline. Aging,
Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 10, 20-27.

31
*Myerson, J., Hale, S., Rhee, S. H., & Jenkins, L. (1999). Selective interference with verbal and
spatial working memory in young and older adults. Journal of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, 54B, P161-164. FS
Myerson, J., Hale, S., Wagstaff, D., Poon, L. W. (1990). The information-loss model: A
mathematical theory of age-related cognitive slowing. Psychological Review, 97, 475-
487.
*Norman, S., Kemper, S., & Kynette, D. (1992). Adults’ reading comprehension: Effects on
syntatic complexity and working memory. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 47, P258-P265. FS BS RS
*Norman, S., Kemper, S., Kynetter, D., Cheung, H., & Anagnopolilos, C. (1991). Syntactic
complexity and adults’ running memory span. Journal of Gerontology, 46, P346-P351.
FS BS
Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of
attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28,
411-421.
Oberauer, K., Süβ, H. M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2000). Working
memory capacity – facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29, 1017-1045.
*Park, D. C., Hertzog, C., Kidder, D. P., Morrell, R. W., & Mayhorn, C. B. (1997). Effect of age
on event-based and time-based prospective memory. Psychology and Aging, 12, 314-
327. RS
32
Park, D. C., Lautenschlager, G., Hedden, T., Davidson, N., Smith, A. D., & Smith, P. (2002).
Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and
Aging, 17, 299-320.
Park, D. C., Polk, T. A., Mikels, J. A., Taylor, S. F., & Marshuetz, C. (2001). Cerebral aging:
Integration of brain and behavioral models of cognitive function. Dialogues in Clinical
Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
*Parkinson, B. R., Inman, V. W., & Dannenbaum, S. E. (1985). Adult age difference in short-
term forgetting. Acta Psychologica, 60, 83-101. LET
*Parkinson, S.R., Lindholm, J. M., & Inman, V. W. (1982). An analysis of age differnces in
immediate recall. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 425-431. FS WS
*Parkinson, S. R., Lindholm, J. M., & Urell, T. (1980). Aging, dichotic memory and digit span.
Journal of Gerontology, 35, P87-P95. FS
Perfect, T. J. (1994). What can Brinley plots tell us about cognitive aging? Journals of
Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, P60-P64.
*Perry, A. R., & Wingfield, A. (1994). Contextual encoding by young and elderly adults as
revealed by cued and free recall. Aging and Cognition, 1, 120-139. FS BS
*Pratt, M. W., Boyes, C., Robins, S., & Manchester, J. (1989). Telling tales: Aging, working
memory, and the narrative cohesion of story retellings. Developmental Psychology, 25,
628-635. RS
*Pratt, M. W., & Robins, S. L. (1991). That’s the way it was: Age differences on the structure
and quality of adults’ personal narratives. Discourse Processes, 14, 73-85. SS

33
*Puckett, J. M., & Stockburger, D. W. (1988). Absence of age-related proneness to short-term
retroactive interference in the absence of rehearsal. Psychology and Aging, 3, 342-347.
WS
*Radvansky, G. A., Zwaan, R. A., Curiel, J. M., & Copeland, D. E. (2001). Situation models
and aging. Psychology and Aging, 16, 145-160. RS
Raz, N. (2000). Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance: Integration of
structural and functional findings. In F. I. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), Handbook
of Aging and Cognition (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Reese, C. M., & Cherry, K. E. (2002). The effects of age, ability, and memory monitoring on
prospective memory task performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 9, 98-
113. BS
Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., Hartley, A., Miller, A., Marschuetz, C., & Koeppe,
R. A. (2000). Age differences in the frontal lateralization of verbal and spatial working
memory revealed by PET. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 174-187.
*Riggs, K. M., Wingfield, A., & Tun, P. A. (1993). Passage difficulty, speech rate and age
differences in memory for spoken text: Speech recall and the complexity hypothesis.
Experimental Aging Research, 19, 111-128. FS BS
*Rouleau & Belleville (1996). Irrelevant speech effect in aging: An assessment of inhibitory
processes in working memory. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 51B,
P356-P363. FS
Rypma, B., & D'Esposito, M. (2000). Isolating the neural mechanisms of age-related changes in
human working memory. Nature, 3, 509-515.

34
*Rypma, B., Prabhakaran, V., Desmond, J. E., & Gabrielli, J. D. E. (2001). Age differences in
prefrontal cortical activity in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 16, 371-384. FS
LS
*Salthouse, T. A. (1988). The role of processing resources in cognitive aging. In M. L. Howe &
C. J. Brainerd (Eds.) Cognitive Development in Adulthood. Springer-Verlag: New York.
BS CS
Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Mediation of adult age differences in cognition by reductions in
working memory and speed of processing. Psychological Science, 2, 179-183.
Salthouse, T. A. (1994). The aging of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 535-543.
Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.
Psychological Review, 103, 403-428.
Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working
memory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 765-776.
Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L., & Shaw, R. J. (1991). Effects of adult age on structural and
operational capacities in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 6, 118-127.
*Salthouse, T. A., & Coon, V. E. (1994). Interpretation of differential deficits: The case of
aging and mental arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 20, 1172-1182. CS RS
*Salthouse, T. A., & Mitchell, D. R. D. (1989). Structural and operational capacities in
integrative spatial ability. Psychology and Aging, 4, 18-25. CS
*Salthouse, T. A., Mitchell, D. R. D., Skovronek, E., & Babcock, R. L. (1989). Effects of adult
age and working memory on reasoning and spatial abilities. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 507-516. CS

35
*Salthouse, T. A. & Prill, K. A. (1987). Inferences about age impairments in inferential
reasoning. Psychology and Aging, 2, 43-51. CS
Sliwinski, M., & Buschke, H. (1999). Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships among age,
cognition, and processing speed. Psychology and Aging, 14, 18-33.
*Stebbins, G. T., Carrillo, M. C., Dorfman, J., Dirksen, C., Desmond, J. E., Turner, D. A.,
Bennett, D. A, Wilson, R. S., Glover, G., & Gabrielli, J. D. E. (2002). Aging effects on
memory encoding in the frontal lobes. Psychology and Aging, 17, 44-55. LS
*Stine, E. A. L., Cheung, H., & Henderson, D. (1995). Adult age differences in the on-line
processing of new concepts in discourse. Aging and Cognition, 2, 1-18. FS LS
*Stine, E. A. L., & Hindman, J. (1994). Age differences in reading time allocation for
propositionally dense sentences. Aging and Cognition, 1, 2-16. FS BS RS LS
*Stine, E. L., & Wingfield, A. (1987). Process and strategy in memory for speech among young
and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 2, 272-279. FS LS
*Stine, E. L., & Wingfield, A. (1990). How much do working memory deficits contribute to age
differences in discourse memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 289-
304. WS SS
*Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Loveless, M. K., & Soederberg, L. M. (1996). Resource allocation in
on-line reading by younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 11, 475-486. FS BS
SS
*Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Milinder, L., Pullara, O., & Herman, B. (2001). Patterns of resource
allocation are reliable among younger and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 16, 69-
84. SS
36
*Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Morrow, D. G., Leno, R. (2002). Aging and the representation of
spatial situations in narrative understanding. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 57B, P291-P297. SS
*Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Ryan, S., & Leonard, J. S. (2000). Age differences in on-line syntactic
processing. Experimental Aging Research, 26, 315-322. SS
*Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Stoederberg-Miller, L. M., & Leno, R. (2001). Patterns of on-line
resource allocation to narrative text by younger and older readers. Aging,
Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 8, 36-53. BS SS
Talland, G. A. (1965). Three estimates of the word span and their stability over the adult years.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 301-307.
*Taub, H. A. (1975). Mode of presentation, age, and short-term memory. Journal of
Gerontology, 30, 56-59. FS
*Taylor, J. L., Yesavage, J. A., Morrow, D. G., Dolhert, N., Brooks, J. O., & Poon, L. W. (1994).
The effects of information load and speech rate on younger and older aircraft pilots’
ability to execute simulated air-traffic controller instructions. Journal of Gerontology, 49,
P191-P200. FS BS
*Thorpe Davis, E., Fujawa, G., & Shikano, T. (2002). Perceptual processing and search
efficiency of young and older adults in a simple-feature search task: A staircase approach.
Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P324-P337. BS
*Trott, C. T., Friedman, D., Ritter, W., Fabian, M., & Snodgrass, J. G. (1999). Episodic priming
and memory for temporal source: Event-related potentials reveal age-related differences
in prefrontal functioning. Psychology and Aging, 14, 390-413. FS BS

37
*Tun, P. A. (1998). Fast noisy speech: Age differences in processing rapid speech with
background noise. Psychology and Aging, 13, 424-434. FS BS
*Tun, P. A. (1989). Age differences in processing expository and narrative text. Journal of
Gerontology, 44, P9-P15. FS
*Tun, P. A., O’Kane, G., & Wingfield, A. (2002). Distraction by competing speech in young and
older adult listeners. Psychology and Aging, 17, 453-467. FS BS
*Tun, P. A., and Wingfield, A. (1995). Does dividing attention become harder with age?
Findings from the divided attention questionnaire. Aging, Neuropsychology, and
Cognition, 2, 39-66. FS BS RS LS
*Tun, P. A., and Wingfield, A. (1999). One voice too many: Adult age differences in language
processing with different types of distracting sounds. Journals of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, 54B, P317-P327. FS BS
*Tun, P. A., Wingfield, A., Stine, E. A., & Mecsas, C. (1992). Rapid speech processing and
divided attention: Processing rate versus processing resources as an explanation of age
effects. Psychology and Aging, 7, 546-550. FS BS
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of
Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
*Uttl, B., & Graf, P. (1993). Episodic spatial memory in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 8,
257-273. FS BS
*Vecchi, T., & Cornoldi, C. (1999). Passive storage and active manipulation in visuo-spatial
working memory: Further evidence from the study of age differences. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 391-406. WS LS

38
*Verhaeghen, P. (1999). The effects of age-related slowing and working memory on asymptotic
recognition performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 6, 201-213. CS RS
Verhaeghen, P. (2000). The parallels in beauty’s brow: Time-accuracy functions and their
implications for cognitive aging theories. In T. J. Perfect and E. A. Maylor (Eds.), Models
of cognitive aging (pp. 50-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verhaeghen, P. & Basak, C. (in press). Aging and switching of the focus of attention in working
memory: Results from a modified N-back task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology.
Verhaeghen, P. & Cerella, J. (2002). Age deficits in executive processing are not caused by age
deficits in executive processing: A review of meta-analyses. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 26, 849-857.
Verhaeghen, P., Cerella, J., Semenec, S. C., Leo, M. E., Bopp, K. L., & Steitz, D. W. (2002).
Cognitive efficiency modes in old age: Performance on sequential and coordinative
verbal and visuo-spatial tasks. Psychology and Aging, 17, 558-570.
Verhaeghen, P. & Hoyer, W. J. (in press). Aging, focus switching and task switching in a
continuous calculation task: Evidence toward a new working memory control process.
Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition.
Verhaeghen, P., Kliegl, R., & Mayr, U. (1997). Sequential and coordinative complexity in time-
accuracy funtions for mental arithmetic. Psychology and Aging, 12, 555-564.
Verhaeghen, P., & Marcoen, A. (1993). Memory aging as a general phenomenon: Episodic recall
of older adults is a function of episodic recall of young adults. Psychology and Aging, 8,
380-388.
39
*Verhaeghen, P., & Marcoen, A. (1996). On the mechanisms of plasticity in young and older
adults after instruction in the method of loci: Evidence for an amplification model.
Psychology & Aging, 11, 164-178. FS LET
Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goosens, L. (1993). Facts and fiction about memory aging: A
quantitative integration of research findings. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, 48, P157-P171.
Verhaeghen, P. & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analyses of age-cognition relations in
adulthood: Estimates of linear and non-linear age effects and structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 231-249.
Verhaeghen, P., Steitz, D. W., Sliwinski, M., & Cerella, J. (in press). Aging and dual-task
performance: A meta-analysis.
*Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2001). Age, working memory, and on-line syntactic processing in
sentence comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 16, 128-144. RS
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
*White, K. K., Abrams, L. (2002). Does priming specific syllables during tip-of-the-tongue
states facilitate word retrieval in older adults? Psychology and Aging, 17, 226-235. FS BS
*Wiegersma, S., & Meertse, K. (1990). Subjective ordering, working memory, and aging.
Experimental Aging Research, 16, 73-77. FS BS

40
*Wingfield, A., Kemtes, K. A., Soederberg-Miller, L. (2001). Adult aging and listening patterns
for spoken prose: Spontaneous segmentation versus self-paced listening. Experimental
Aging Research, 27, 229-239. FS BS
*Wingfield, A., Stine, E. A., Lahar, C. J., & Aberdeen, J. S. (1988). Does the capacity of
working memory change with age? Experimental Aging Research, 14, 103-107. FS WS
LS
*Wingfield, A., Tun, P. A., Koh, C. K., & Rosen, M. J. (1999). Regaining lost time: Adult aging
and the effects of time restoration on recall of time-compressed speech. Psychology and
Aging, 14, 380-389. FS BS
Wright, R. E. (1981). Aging, divided attention, and processing capacity. Journal of
Gerontology, 36, 605-614.

41
Author notes
Kara L. Bopp and Paul Verhaeghen, Department of Psychology and Center for Health and
Behavior, Syracuse University. Kara Bopp is currently at Hamilton College.
This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (AG-
16201). The research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the first
author’s doctoral degree. We thank John Cerella and Martin Sliwinski for helpful comments on
earlier versions of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kara Bopp, Department of
Psychology, 198 College Hill Road, Clinton, NY 13323; or Paul Verhaeghen, Department of
Psychology, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-2340.
Electronic mail may be sent to kbopp@hamilton.edu, or pverhaeg@psych.syr.edu.

42
Footnotes
1
There is some heterogeneity in methods to estimate span. To assess the effect of
these discrepancies, the models were reestimated, including only those studies that
utilized exactly identical procedures within each type of span task (k = 126). The
procedures included used two or three trials per length in serial order. Computation span
procedure required math to be generated orally and memory for the second digit in the
equation (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991). Listening span required auditory presentation and
memory for the last word (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991). Reading span procedure had
visual presentation and memory for the last word without any additional task beyond
reading (Hartley, 1986). Sentence span procedure was same as described by Stine and
Wingfield (1990) combining previously mentioned reading span and listening span.
Letter span could not be included due to heterogeneity in procedures. Word span
procedure required auditory presentation and oral participant response. Finally, WAIS and
WAIS-R procedures were included for forward digit span and backward digit span
(Wechsler, 1955; 1981). The model fits were not significantly better compared to
previous analysis (without intercepts); R2 = .988, R2 = .992, R2 = .993 for Model 1, 2, and
3, respectively, and the parameter values did not differ substantially from those obtained
on the full sample of studies. The analysis suggests that procedural differences are not
responsible for the observed variability among span scores.

2
To be exact, forward digit span and backward digit span regression lines cross at
Span Younger = 3.42.

3
One of the reviewers mentioned the possibility that the aggregation of digit
forward span with word span and letter span might account for the discrepancy between
43
our result and the large-scale individual studies mentioned above. To test for this
possibility, we ran a regression analysis allowing separate slopes within simple storage
span (forward digit span versus word and letter span), in addition to the functions for
backward span and working memory span already included in our final model. The
model fit was significantly better than that of the final model, R2 = .992; ∆R2 = .000;
incremental F(1, 198) = 8.10, p < .01). For forward span, the slope equaled 0.93 (SE =
0.01), and the slope for word span and letter span combined equaled 0.86 (SE = 0.03).
Therefore, the relationship between simple storage span and backward span was not
altered by the separation of forward digit span from word and letter span.
44
Table 1.
Means, Medians, Standard Deviations, Minimum, and Maximum Span Scores for Younger and
Older Adults Included in the Brinley Analyses, weighted for sample size.
Note. k = number of studies.

Task Age group k Mean SD Min Max Age
difference
Forward digit span Younger 64 7.59 0.99 5.91 10.50 0.53
Older 7.06 1.02 4.19 9.80
Word span Younger 13 5.17 0.47 4.29 6.02 0.65
Older 4.52 0.37 3.90 5.15
Letter span Younger 5 5.86 0.32 5.09 6.43 0.97
Older 4.89 0.30 4.47 5.30
Backward digit span Younger 57 5.88 1.10 4.40 8.93 0.54
Older 5.34 0.96 4.04 8.00
Computation span Younger 14 4.58 1.14 3.28 6.70 1.54
Older 3.04 1.05 1.83 5.18
Listening span Younger 12 3.74 0.58 2.85 5.40 1.27
Older 2.47 0.47 1.66 4.30
Reading span Younger 28 3.49 0.57 2.40 5.00 0.63
Older 2.86 0.49 2.01 4.30
Sentence span Younger 10 4.81 0.65 2.70 5.30 1.01
Older 3.80 0.53 2.32 4.50
45
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Brinley plot of young-old span scores, overlaid with the best fitting linear model,
assuming three separate lines (STM = short-term memory, i.e., simple storage, regression line
indicated by full ine; BS = backward digit span, regression line indicated by dashed line; and
WM = working memory, regression line indicated by dotted line).
Figure 2. Brinley plot of young-old span scores: (a) forward digit span, separated by assessment
method (WAIS prior to the 1981 revision; WAIS-R; and non-WAIS procedures); (b) backward
digit span, separated by assessment method (WAIS prior to the 1981 revision; WAIS-R; and non-
WAIS procedures).
46
Figure 1
12
STM
BS
10
WM
Regression
STM
8 Regression
BS
Regression
WM
6
Span Older
4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Span Younger
47
Figure 2.
12
10
8
fds
WAIS
6
WAIS-R
Span Older
4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Span Younger
12
10
8 bds
WAIS
6 WAIS-R
Span Older Other

4 WAIS
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Span Younger

Boppverhaeghen 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boppverhaeghen 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Span and Aging Meta-Analysis

Aging and Verbal Memory Span: A Meta-Analysis

Kara L. Bopp and Paul Verhaeghen

span; and (3) working memory span.

Span tasks are a popular measure in cognitive psychology and neuropsychological

literature. Working memory refers to the dynamic relationship between passive storage and active

manipulation or transformation of information held in memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974;

sentences in true/false or multiple-choice format. Listening span task requires participants to

measure of sentence span. In computation span, a series of arithmetic problems is presented to

the longest series that is correctly recalled.

scores were used in the current analysis.

Memory span and aging: Developmental theory

working memory, more notably in attentional/executive working memory control (Baddeley,

memory tasks, which require mere storage.

coordination, with step functions in the observed age differences.

slowing of computational processes will cause a decrease in short-term memory/working

needed for subsequent processing (Salthouse’s ‘simultaneity mechanism’). Statistically

short-term memory/working memory performance (Salthouse, 1991; Verhaeghen & Salthouse,

age-related breakdown in inhibitory control leads to an increase in the number of simultaneously

from an examination of the best-fitting linear models.

memory span task. Data collection was concluded in November 2002.

In Brinley analysis, performance of older adults is plotted as a function of performance of

weighting for sample size.

these studies is unusually large.

intercepts and slopes for different types of span tasks.

spanolder = a + b spanyounger. (1)

account of the data. It is shown in Figure 1, overlaid on the data.

less than working memory span.

Reliable age differences in all span tasks

of negative age differences in verbal span measures.

adults will result in similar effects in older adults.

larger age differences.

Verhaeghen & Hoyer, in press).

above the diagonal.

The Brinley analysis shows confirmation of prior findings of an age-related dissociation

Age differences in backward digit span

agreement with the current findings, Sliwinski and Buschke (1999), in a longitudinal study, found

Myerson, Emery, White, & Hale, 2003; Park et al., 2002)3.

Summary and outlook

backward and digit span forward.

alphabet span; CS = computation span; LS = listening span; RS = reading span; SS = sentence

detection of optic flow components. Psychology and Aging, 13, 297-308. FS BS

*Babcock, R. L, & Laguna, K. D. (1996). An examination of the adult age-related differences on

the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: A structural equations approach. Aging,

Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 3, 187-200. CS LS

differences in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 5, 421-428. FS CS

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

information in working memory. Memory and Cognition, 26, 572-583. WS

of performance in the elderly. Dissertation Abstracts, 26, 1158-1159.

of Gerontology, 13, 398-406. FS BS

and free-recall performance. Psychology and Aging, 11, 3-9. BS

and older adults. Developmental Psychology, 20, 903-910. FS BS

Evidence from individual differences, aphasia, and aging. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.)

Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp.1075 – 1112). New York: Academic Press.

memory. Psychology and Aging, 14, 60-76. FS BS

and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 10, 379-394. BS

Time course and encoding effects. Psychology and Aging, 3, 358-366. FS BS

disability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 8-17.

processing tasks: Strategy selection and processing efficiency. Journal of Gerontology,

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. (1986). A functional account of age differences in memory. In F. Klix & H.