Table 1 Summary of all studies included in each of the two global meta-analyses.
From: Episodic and semantic feeling-of-knowing in aging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors (year) | Sample size | Age range | Task | Material | Recognition type | FOK scale | Number of trials | Attempt of matched performance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YA | OA | YA | OA | ||||||||
Allen-Burge and Storandt (2000)42—Exp 1 | 45 | 45 | 18–21 | 62–79 | Semantic | Rare-word definitions | 2AFC | 7-point | 50 | No | |
Butterfield et al. (1988)43—Exp 2 | 54 | 36 | 18–19 | 60–93 | Semantic | General-knowledge questions | 7AFC | Yes/no | 12 | No | |
Douchemane et al. (2007)17 | 18 | 18 | 20–38 | 60–80 | Semantic | Definitions of words | 5AFC | Yes/no | 40 | No | |
Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | Yes/no | 40 | No | ||||||
Eakin and Hertzog (2012)24 | 51 | 42 | NA | NA | Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | 0–100% | 44 (22 + 22) | No | |
Eakin et al. (2014)23 | 50 | 56 | 18–21 | NA | Semantic | Famous faces’ names | 3AFC | 0–100% | 30 | No | |
Episodic | Non-famous faces with names | 3AFC | 0–100% | 30 | No | ||||||
Hertzog et al. (2010)26 | 54 | 54 | NA | NA | Episodic | Pairs of words | 4AFC | 0–100% | 20 | Manipulation of the delay between encoding and test. Larger delay for the younger group (7 days). Two OA groups: one with a delay of 48 h and the other with a delay of 30 min* | |
MacLaverty and Hertzog (2009)41 | 206 | 200 | 17–27 | 60–80 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 4AFC | 25%-100% | 36 | No | |
Marquié and Huet (2000)9 | 22 | 22 | 18–30 | 61–77 | Semantic | General-knowledge + computer-related questions | 4AFC | 5-point | 138 (69 + 69) | No | |
Morson et al. (2015)18 | 35 | 16 | 18–29 | 60–85 | Semantic | General-knowledge questions | 4AFC | Yes/no | 60 | No | |
Episodic | Answers to general-knowledge questions (unrecognized in semantic memory) | 4AFC | Yes/no | 60 minus items with correct recognition on the sFOK task | No | ||||||
Perrotin et al. (2006)31 | 40 | 62 | 20–30 | 61–89 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | Yes/no | 40 | No | |
Sacher et al. (2013)39 | Full attention | 20 | 60 | 22–36 | 61–82 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | 6-point (0–100%) | 60 | Manipulation of attention. Three YA groups: one group with divided attention at encoding, the other with divided attention for FOK judgment. The third group was a control group with full attention |
Attention encoding | 20 | ||||||||||
Attention FOKs | 20 | ||||||||||
Sacher et al. (2015)29 | 59 | 61 | 20–36 | 61–82 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | 0–100% | 60 | No | |
Souchay and Isingrini (2012)28 | 16 | 36 | Episodic | Pairs of words | Old/new | Yes/no | 40 | No | |||
Souchay et al. (2000)27 | 20 | 41 | 20–32 | 60–98 | Episodic | Pairs of words | Yes/no | Yes/no | 36 | No | |
Souchay et al. (2002)25 | 16 | 16 | 21–30 | 52–93 | Episodic | Pairs of words | Old/new | Yes/no | 20 | No | |
Souchay et al. (2007)19—Exp 1 | 20 | 40 | 20–30 | 64–91 | Semantic | General-knowledge questions | 5AFC | Yes/no | 40 | No | |
Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | Yes/no | 40 | No | ||||||
Souchay et al. (2007)19—Exp 2 | 20 | 36 | 20–30 | 60–91 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 5AFC | Yes/no | 40 | No | |
Thomas et al. (2011)40—Exp 1 | 42 | 42 | 18–24 | 61–82 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 6AFC | 17–100% | 36 | Manipulation of the presentation time at encoding (500 ms for YA and 5 s for OA). Participants could only move to the FOK phase if they had at least 33% of correct recall | |
Thomas et al. (2011)40—Exp 2 | Group info before | 22 | 20 | 18–24 | 65–82 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 6AFC | 17–100% | 36 | Same as Experiment 1 |
Group info after | 24 | 15 | |||||||||
Thomas et al. (2011)40—Exp 3 | Group FOK deadline | 24 | 24 | 18–24 | 66–85 | Episodic | Pairs of words | 6AFC | 17–100% | 36 | Same as Experiments 1 and 2 |
Group info deadline | 24 | 24 | |||||||||
