Remembering That Person's Name

Recent research finds that we all have a tough time remembering names as we age. But for those with early Alzheimer's the decline is significant and includes forgetting biographical information, as well. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Note:  An audio clip from Saturday Night Live describes a fake product called the "Mom Translator."

That’s a clip from Saturday Night Live. And maybe we can all relate. I know I can. Although I blame my namenesia on the fact that I don’t watch television. 
 
But recalling famous people’s names might give us clues to early detection of Alzheimer’s. According to a recent study in the Canadian Journal on Aging
 
The inability to remember names is called anomia and it’s a top complaint of older folks. (And me.) The researchers wanted to find out first if there’s a difference in remembering names and other biographical information (also known as semantic memory.)  
 
So they tested the memories of 117 healthy 60 to 91 year-olds. And they found that the ability to put a name to a photo of a famous person declines with age. But semantic memory, which includes biographical info, like knowing that George Bush was a U.S. President, remains unaffected by age.  
 
And here’s a neat finding: older people have an easier time recalling semantic details when provided a name, as opposed to a photo of the person. Presumably because names are consistent but faces change.  In a second study the same researchers found that patients with cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s are significantly less able to remember famous names. But unlike healthy elders, their semantic memories are also significantly compromised.  
 
The researchers say that a semantic memory test could become a clinical tool to detect those at risk of early Alzheimer’s. Intervention could help keep them in the name game.

—Christie Nicholson


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe