After answering a test question, feedback of the correct answer provided after a brief delay can be more beneficial to learning than feedback provided immediately (Brackbill & Kappy, 1962; Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972). Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain this delay-of-feedback benefit, with the most well supported being that delaying feedback promotes anticipation of the correct answer, which has been examined using curiosity as a measure of answer anticipation (Mullaney et al. 2014). The present study tested this model across two task designs, one designed to elicit epistemic curiosity, and one designed to elicit perceptual curiosity, to determine if the relationship between curiosity and feedback delay is type-dependent. In Task 1, participants answered trivia questions, reported their subjective level of curiosity to know the answer, and then received correct answer feedback after a variable delay (0s, 4s, or 8s). Task 2 was identical to Task 1, except that participants learned and were tested on the identities of blurred pictures, rather than trivia question answers. A subsequent learning retention test demonstrated a significant effect of curiosity, but not feedback delay, on performance in the trivia task, and no significant effect of curiosity, but a negative effect of feedback delay, on performance in the blurred pictures task. Neither task found a significant interaction effect between curiosity and delay group, which fails to support the answer anticipation model of the delay-of-feedback benefit.

The present study examined the effects that mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) has on an individual’s episodic memory by looking at participants’ abilities to recall stories both immediately after being verbally told and after a delay. Thirty-seven participants were sorted into a control group (N=27) and a mTBI group (N=10) and then given the Wechsler Memory Scale’s two subtests, Logical Memory I and Logical Memory II. Logical Memory I consists of two verbally given stories in which the participant immediately retells the story to the assessor with as much detail and original vocabulary as they can remember. Logical Memory II has the participants, without prior knowledge, retell the same two stories after a thirty-minute delay. Once recorded, researchers transcribed and scored the participants’ story recalls, gathering data on what errors, correct ideas, and vocabulary the participants made and remembered. The data was then analyzed through an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), looking at the interaction of Story (of the two stories that the participants were told), Group (whether mTBI or control) , and Delay (whether it was the immediate or delayed recall). Trends in the data show that participants with a history of mTBI do more poorly than the control group proving that memory is affected by acquired brain injury and that further studies to examine how and why this is the case are needed.

The current study investigated emotional language use in middle aged and older adults in interviews in which they were asked questions relating to Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Participants were split into two groups, one that attended Memory Clinic to have their cognition assessed, representing information seekers, and those who did not attend. These interviews were then transcribed and run through LIWC2015 software to determine linguistic differences between the two groups. Results did not indicate statistically significant differences between language use in those who attended Memory Clinic compared with those who did not. Further study with a sample that has higher levels of anxiety related to Alzheimer's disease and related dementias may produce statistically significant results.