Acting with the future in mind: Testing competing prospective memory interventions.

Abstract

vulnerability: life course perspectives Prospective memory (PM) is a critical determinant of whether a person is able to lead an independent life. Because PM declines in late adulthood, an important question is therefore whether, and if so, which types, of PM interventions might lead to meaningful benefits. In the present study, we randomly assigned older adults to one of four conditions, in three of which participants received a structured PM intervention (Restorative, Compensatory, and Combined Restorative and Compensatory); the fourth was an Active Control condition. The results showed that there were significant gains on the PM training task used for both the Restorative and Combined conditions. We then analyzed change in PM tasks that were independent of the PM training task (Near Transfer). Only the Combined condition led to post-training improvement. Finally, we analyzed performance on measures of untrained cognitive abilities and everyday functioning: Far transfer effects were not evident for any intervention. These data align with prior literature in showing that interventions that target a single cognitive ability do not reliably generate far transfer effects, and additionally extend our understanding of these effects in two important ways. Firstly, they indicate that, even when the memory challenges that older adults are most concerned about are the direct target of restorative training, transfer effects to untrained cognitive domains may be difficult to achieve. Secondly, they indicate that for older adults whose primary goal is to enhance PM function, combining Restorative and Compensatory approaches is an effective approach.

Preserving prospective memory in daily life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mnemonic strategy, cognitive training, external memory aid, and combination interventions.

“…Combination interventions are the Swiss Army knife approach to supporting prospective memory, attempting to equip individuals with an array of tools that they can customize to their needs. The combination interventions in this meta-analysis showed mildly effective results for healthy older adults (Table 4; for evidence for larger effects, see Henry et al, in press). However, the combination interventions did not benefit individuals with neurocognitive disorders (i.e., the 95% confidence interval overlapped with zero; Table 4).…”

Using smartphone technology to improve prospective memory functioning: A randomized controlled trial

“…Current nonpharmacological approaches to supporting prospective memory include cognitive “brain” training, mnemonic strategies, and electronic memory aids 5 . With few exceptions, brain training paradigms have not produced clinically significant benefits to everyday prospective memory functioning 6 . Training healthy adults to use mnemonic strategies has shown promise in laboratory settings, but the evidence is mixed as to whether persons with ADRD can effectively use mnemonic strategies in naturalistic settings 7,8 …”

“…5 With few exceptions, brain training paradigms have not produced clinically significant benefits to everyday prospective memory functioning. 6 Training healthy adults to use mnemonic strategies has shown promise in laboratory settings, but the evidence is mixed as to whether persons with ADRD can effectively use mnemonic strategies in naturalistic settings. 7,8 Electronic memory aids allow intentions to be "offloaded" 9 onto digital devices so that they can be accessed anytime.…”

The effects of implementation intentions on prospective memory in young and older adults

“…Consequently, Henry et al ( 2021 ) conducted a randomized control trial comparing PM performance in healthy older adults (60–87 years old) using four, 6-week interventions: (1) restorative or process-based ( N = 30), directly training PM, (2) compensatory training involving psychoeducation, II, monitoring strategies, and external reminders ( N = 31), (3) combined restorative and compensatory ( N = 31), and (4) active control ( N = 32). They investigated near-transfer to the same PM tasks, and far-transfer effects to untrained cognitive domains and functional capacity on the Timed version of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living task.…”