Home › Research › Risk factors
Adaptive Memory and Metacognition in Older Adulthood: A Path Towards Successful Aging
Chen A, Hoover K, Kandel E, Castel A.. PsyArXiv, 2026-10-05
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Aging is characterized by normative changes in memory and a continued capacity for goal-directed learning and adaptation. Consequently, the maintenance and preservation of cognitive abilities that enable responsible remembering (e.g., selectivity, schematic support) and build resilience may equip older adults with the skills needed to navigate memory challenges in a technologically-advanced world. Research demonstrates that older adults can effectively monitor and self-regulate their behaviors under high task demands, modify encoding strategies to compensate for memory declines, and draw upon prior knowledge and expertise to reinforce learning. Regularly engaging in leisure activities (e.g., creative hobbies, curiosity-driven exploration, educational classes about aging and cognition) may also enhance neuroplasticity, lower dementia risk, and promote positive self-perceptions of aging. Overall, leveraging older adults’ metacognitive abilities and enhanced motivation through targeted interventions may offer a promising approach to promoting successful aging among an increasingly growing aging population.
Key findings
- Overall, leveraging older adults’ metacognitive abilities and enhanced motivation through targeted interventions may offer a promising approach to promoting successful aging among an increasingly growing aging population.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PsyArXiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Chen, A., Hoover, K., Kandel, E., & Castel, A. (2026). Adaptive Memory and Metacognition in Older Adulthood: A Path Towards Successful Aging. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kr65m_v1
Vancouver
Chen A, Hoover K, Kandel E, Castel A. Adaptive Memory and Metacognition in Older Adulthood: A Path Towards Successful Aging. PsyArXiv. 2026. doi:10.31234/osf.io/kr65m_v1.
BibTeX
@article{chen2026-c3cd44b4,
author = {Chen, A. and Hoover, K. and Kandel, E. and Castel, A.},
title = {{Adaptive Memory and Metacognition in Older Adulthood: A Path Towards Successful Aging}},
journal = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/kr65m_v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kr65m_v1}
}