« Sunday Serendipity: 28 December 2008 | Main | Medical Alert Products for Elders »

Monday, 29 December 2008

Do Elders Gain Rosier Memories with Age?

For the past decade or so, Crabby Old Lady has been aware that she thinks differently than when she was young and she responds differently to emotional situations – good and bad. She thinks it is interesting to note these changes, but there is not much information available to help her understand them.

Mostly that’s due to lack of research into old brains but in recent years, undoubtedly due to a worldwide aging population, more is being done. Much of it is preliminary, so there are no definitive answers yet and an overview of old brains has not been achieved. Little by little, however, we are learning more.

Except when we’re not. Let Crabby explain.

According to a new study from neuroscientists at Duke University, there is a reason old people recall fewer negative events than young people.

“The scientists found that older adults have less connectivity between an area of the brain that generates emotions and a region involved in memory and learning. But they also found that the older adults have stronger connections with the frontal cortex, the higher thinking area of the brain that controls these lower-order parts of the brain.

“Young adults used more of the brain regions typically involved in emotion and recalling memories.”
- Science Daily, 20 December 2008

The study was done with older adults whose average age was 70 and younger ones whose average age was 24. They were shown a series of 30 pictures during a fMRI some of which were neutral and others that were strongly negative such as snakes and mutilated bodies. After the series, they were asked to recall the photos and the results were sorted in each age group by the number of pictures they could recall.

"’The younger adults were able to recall more of the negative photos,’ said Roberto Cabeza, Ph.D., senior author and Duke professor in the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. If the older adults are using more thinking than feeling, ‘that may be one reason why older adults showed a reduction in memory for pictures with a more negative emotional content.’"

The different ways of thinking have tradeoffs, said Dr. Cabeza:

"’Older people have learned to be less affected by negative information in order to maintain their well being and emotional state – they may have sacrificed more accurate memory for a negative stimulus, so that they won't be so affected by it.’"

Now here is Crabby’s problem with this study: The first sentence of the Science Daily story makes an undocumented assumption that she doesn’t necessarily buy: “It turns out there's a scientific reason why older people tend to see the past through rose-colored glasses.”

Do we recall past negative events more positively than they were? Crabby doesn’t know about you, but she has acutely painful memories of past bad times. Not that she dwells on them particularly, but when they come to mind, they don’t get more pleasant with the passage of years, although Crabby will admit she is able to view them with more emotional distance than when they occurred.

Then, toward the end of the story, Dr. Cabeza makes another leap that Crabby questions:

"’Older people dwell in a world with a lot of negatives,’ [he says] ‘so perhaps they have learned to reduce the impact of negative information and remember in a different way.’"

A “lot of negatives”? Okay, Crabby can’t run or even walk as fast as she once did, she falls asleep at night earlier than she would like, her hair is falling out, her stamina has waned and too many loved ones are dead.

But Crabby can think of worse problems to have and she has adapted – just as she adapted to different kinds of limitations when she was young. She doesn’t feel that she lives in a world with a lot of negatives.

Crabby read a report of the study and not the study itself, so perhaps there is some misunderstanding on the writer’s part. But one can’t argue with doctor’s statement and these two assumptions throw the results out of whack for Crabby: ageist beliefs that could not help but affect the study and its interpretation by the researchers.

Crabby Old Lady is, of course, not a neuroscientist and for all she knows old people’s rosy memories and lives of negativity are proven facts, although they seem to fall more into the scientific world of psychology and not brain study.

What ticks off Crabby about this report is that because of those questionable assumptions, she can’t trust the study and that messes with her minor hobby of keeping up with elder brain research.

[At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Brent Green recalls My Father’s Lessons.]

Posted by Ronni Bennett at 06:22 AM | Permalink | Email this post

Comments

Whoa! Dr. Cabeza? And he does 'brain' studies? For a second I thought April 1st had come early.

Despite the good doctor's name, I would still have to agree with you. It's far too simple an answer for a very complex subject.

Posted by: Steven on Dec 29, 2008 8:50:34 AM

I am still pondering this post.
I do know that when painful memories from the past surface that I just choose not to linger. That is a conscious thought.
Have enough to think about for today.

Posted by: Ernestine on Dec 29, 2008 9:38:41 AM

Before I gave any credence to a study like that, I would need to know a helluva lot more about the research design. Like, for instance, how they decided what was a 'negative' stimulus and what was a 'positive' one. Those things are very subjective. (For example, why is a snake a 'negative' stimulus? I love snakes and see them as beautiful, so a snake picture would definitely be a 'positive' for me.)
So before they even started on the experiment proper,did they norm the pictures on subjects from both the same two age cohorts before they used them on the experimental subjects and make sure the agreement was significant to the .001 level? Even if they did,'Science Daily' almost certainly didn't include that vital piece of info.
The longer we live, the more worldly-wise - perhaps even blasé - we tend to be, simply because of our life experience. At 24, I might have been really shaken by a picture of a mutilated body. Now, at 72, it probably wouldn't faze me nearly so much, since (a) I have been exposed to another half-century of news photos and (b) one of the things I have done in this long lifetime of mine is to dissect cadavers.
I can think of at least two more aspects of this study that I would need to look into before I could even begin to draw any conclusions from the results.
The problem with studies like this is that all we usually see are the results as reported by journalists, most of whom haven't studied scientific research design. Plus, there is an awful lot of sloppy science around. To interpret this sort of stuff properly, one needs to read the full report in whatever obscure journal originally published it. But whenever I try to access scientific reports online, I usually find my way barred.
We should all keep the salt jar handy.

Posted by: Marian Van Eyk McCain on Dec 29, 2008 9:39:01 AM

Marian - couldn't agree with you more and like you, I've almost always found that the actual study results are behind paid firewalls.

Steven: so glad you caught the Dr. Cabeza irony. It took all of Crabby Old Lady's will power not to insert a paragraph or two about that.

Posted by: Ronni Bennett on Dec 29, 2008 9:53:55 AM

Boy, you're right on with this, Crabby. "Older people dwell in a world with a lot of negatives" begs for definition from the first word to the last.
I had a professor in graduate school who flat-out mocked the way the social sciences operationalize what they're studying - i.e., create a controlled experiment to measure things like negativity. As Marian notes, using a snake as a universal symbol of a "negative" is really dubious. My professor made the point that most social science research is done with the subjects at hand - American college undergraduates - and the notion of generalizing from them to the whole human race is a bit of a leap.

Posted by: mary jamison on Dec 29, 2008 10:04:21 AM

It seems to me the funds that the National Institutes of Health spends on such insubstantial studies could be put to better use.

Bah humbug. I feel a BIG NEGATIVE emotion coming on.
But that's OK. I won't remember it tomorrow.

Posted by: chancy on Dec 29, 2008 10:14:02 AM

Add my name with the list of Crabby's supporters. Just the concepts of positive/negative as described here are way too subjective to provide valuable data, in my opinion.
Marian, I've often found the same problem when I try to track info to its source. One of the few things about the 'net that makes me crazy.
Happy New year, all... :)

Posted by: Kate on Dec 29, 2008 10:19:02 AM

Very interesting and it coincides with something that has been debated at my blog. I had been trying to get people to see saying young at heart is not a good thing. Old at heart would be more accurate as a positive. The most positive thinking people didn't see that at all and still like young at heart.

So I began to wonder was this for one of two different reasons. One I will be exploring there later but the other was that people have forgotten what it's like to be young and given it virtues it never had when they were actually there :)

For me, I remember the good and the bad, the upsetting and the uplifting, but I only dwell on the good and if I had to look at a gory set of photos, I would look as short a time as possible because I don't want that kind of image in my head. I do this in movies too. Maybe those young people in the test have more tolerance for it due to the kind of movies they flock to see?

Posted by: Rain on Dec 29, 2008 10:57:34 AM

I wonder whose grant money was wasted on this one?

Reminds me of the science project I created in junior high that I got an “F” on. It was centered on taking a teaspoon of various colors of liquid shoe polish, diluting them in glasses of water, then putting tadpoles in each solution and seeing how long it took them to die! I even had the audacity to title the project “The Affects of Liquid Shoe Polish on Tadpoles”!

But now that I have hopefully made clear my personal opinion on the relevance of this study, let’s rely to a large part on common sense here. The fact that they used photographs of negative and positive nature to reach their conclusions actually makes this common sense critique quite simple for me. Especially when you take note that the negative images were of attacking snakes, mutilated bodies, and violent acts.

If you show me a picture of a mutilated body…..then come back at some future point and ask me how many arms or legs were missing? I am pretty certain that I will look at you like you’ve got several screws loose to even presume that I would have scrutinized such a picture in such detail. This has absolutely nothing to do with my age or brain, but does have much to do with the society and culture that I grew up in verses the society and culture in which the comparison group grew up.

I remember when the movie “Mash” was released in 1970 (I was 31 years old at the time) and everyone was talking about how good the movie was but that the operating room scenes were full of blood and gore. And it was tough to watch because we had not been subjected to those type images. Not the dose of reality we were accustomed to seeing. I could probably remember lots of details when ole “Hot Lips” hit the showers but nix on any of the operating room details.

The younger generation used in this comparison has been exposed to many, many more negative images than those of the generation being used in the comparison. As we all know movies, television shows and video games contain all types of negative images, thus the younger generation actually seeks out these images. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure they are going to remember more of the details of negative images.

I find negative images much more repulsive than my younger counterparts because I was not exposed to these type images. So when seeing such images I would look away since I found them much more repulsive. Thus, I would not give myself the opportunity to take in the details. But as to my negative life experiences, I’ll give you all the details you can handle!

So what does this research study show about “my” retention of life’s good and bad experiences? Not a damn thing!!

Posted by: Alan G on Dec 29, 2008 11:00:30 AM

Hmmm. Well, as one of the younger readers here, I ought to remember this study pretty well now since it certainly has been a negative experience thinking about it, for me! What a piece of garbage it sounds like. It would be interesting to see the original study and see if it is any better than the article suggests it is, but my suspicion is it isn't.

First off, since when is a purely-visual comparison a decent comparison to a lived experience? Second, how was "negative" defined and chosen? Third, were the candidates not recalling later because of memory issues, or because they could not bear to look at the photo at the time? I do not remember things I do not look at for long as well as those I do, regardless of why I didn't look at them for long. Was any work such as watching where their eyes tracked in the photo while they viewed it done? What about viewers who either had a much stronger or weaker "negative" connotation to a given image? Was any attempt made to determine which among the subjects was a more visual person in general, vs. someone who is more likely to recall via other means? Was eyesight and correction taken into consideration?

I'm sure I could sit here and come up with more questions, but it hardly seems worth it. The study is done; either the article is garbage or the study was a waste of time; and in any case it is hard to take it seriously.

Posted by: Laura on Dec 29, 2008 11:29:18 AM

I disagree w/this study. I had some very traumtic childhood experiences. It has taken awhile to make peace with them. I still do remember certain occasions
w/emotion.
I'm writing up journal enteries w/ a few c/hood pic. I decided this was a better way to remember the good times rather than the negative.
I would freak out w/the pic's of snakes. I hate them since I had too close contact w/them on the ranch in Texas as a teen. I would have a hard time w/the gross pic's of the bodies.
Yes I'm a crabby lady @ times. I have lived w/pain for over 25 years. The weather changes really take me down.Ihave too many health problems and my girls don't want to deal w/ it.
I love my g-kids and I miss them. I don't have the energy to clean the house,cook meals etc. and still have energy to spend w/the g/kids. Heidi thinks she's on vacation and doesn't pitch in to help. It's just too much stress. I can't talk to her on it since she's so agrumemtative when she doesn't agree on s/thing. It's just too much stress on me.

Posted by: Glograbear on Dec 29, 2008 12:39:23 PM

Ronni - Dear - I have recently been diagnosed with CRS Disease....WHAT???? Oh, Forget it!!!!

Posted by: Sheila Halet on Dec 29, 2008 12:41:29 PM

Others have covered this subject far better than I can so I will only add that I couldn't look at gory scenes in a movie or on the printed page when I was young. I would avert my eyes in horror. Now, having been exposed to them for many, many years I look and think how terrible, but without the revulsion I felt when I was young. I guess the years have made me more callous. So why wouldn't this affect remembering negative pictures? I simply don't want to remember them.

Posted by: Darlene on Dec 29, 2008 12:41:31 PM

I have noticed differences in how engaged I feel with my emotions. It's as if there's more distance or something. I cry, get upset, feel anger, and all that but not as strongly as I used to - not that I've ever been dramatic or histrionic or even close to it. The feeling is different, though, which I attributed to not having hormones anymore. That changed a lot of things! LOL

I agree with the others about the validity of this study. Glad you told us about it.

Posted by: Joy D on Dec 29, 2008 3:15:48 PM

Of course we dwell in a "world with a lot of negatives."

The biggest one is that people make condescending judgments about us, this time using science as a rationale.

Posted by: Paula on Dec 29, 2008 6:23:50 PM

Yeah, this sounds like a giant leap to those conclusions from viewing pictures of snakes and mutilations. Maybe some researcher will come up with a better way to check out the hypothesis raised in that study. I think we become desensitized to many experiences based on many factors including the frequency of exposure, so I wonder how they account for those variables?

Posted by: joared on Dec 30, 2008 3:33:42 AM

We are the ones best able to report how we feel, how we see the world around us--depending on many factors of life stage, economics, geography. All of these factors are recognized perfectly in the comments here.

Where is the medium that would visit TGB to write about real older people responding to the assessments of others--about how we feel? Answers might emerge to many valid questions raised. I see a real need for this useful post to have wider circulation.

Posted by: naomi dagen bloom on Dec 30, 2008 3:27:01 PM


Post a comment