The Effect of Perceptual Distinctiveness on the Prospective and Retrospective Components of Prospective Memory in Young and Old Adults.

Abstract

In two experiments, the effect of perceptual distinctiveness of cues on prospective memory performance was examined. Young and older adults completed a visual search task with embedded prospective memory instructions. On each trial, participants were asked to indicate the position of a target letter in a letter string, unless either of two letters previously identified as prospective memory cues was presented. Each prospective cue was associated with a specific response. Perceptual distinctiveness was manipulated by spatially displacing a single letter. The prospective component (successful detection of the cue) and the retrospective memory component (recalling the correct response when a cue is detected) were measured separately. Perceptual displacement of cues modulated performance of the prospective component but not the retrospective component. Young adults successfully detected a larger proportion of cues (prospective component) than older adults. However, there were minimal effects of age and no effect of cue displacement on participants' ability to recall the intention once they detected a cue (retrospective component performance). Results are discussed within the context of current theoretical models of prospective memory.

Can We Remember Future Actions yet Forget the Last Two Minutes? Study in Transient Global Amnesia

“…We administered two distinct eventbased tasks, together with a similar ongoing task, to assess the ProCom and RetCom separately, as far as possible, using a direct measure. In the literature, the ProCom has often been assessed with an indirect measure, only relevant when both components are preserved: When the participants fail to carry out the prospective task, the experimenter asks them if there is something they are meant to do (i.e., he or she compensates for a possible ProCom impairment by helping them to remember when to do something, and ProCom is never assessed independently; Livner et al, 2009;Adda et al, 2008;Costa et al, 2008;Carlesimo et al, 2004;Cohen et al, 2003). This only allows ProCom integrity to be assessed if the RetCom is preserved, too (i.e., the participant performs the correct prospective task at the appropriate time).…”

“…However, these two components are difficult to study separately in two different but comparable tasks. Previous studies have encountered this very difficulty, for although they have been able to assess the RetCom by giving participants a clue to compensate for any ProCom deficit (Livner, Laukka, Karlsson, & Backman, 2009;Adda, Castro, Alem-Mar e Silva, de Manreza, & Kashiara, 2008;Costa, Peppe, Caltagirone, & Carlesimo, 2008;Carlesimo, Casadio, & Caltagirone, 2004;Cohen, Dixon, Lindsay, & Masson, 2003), but these paradigms did not assess the ProCom directly.…”

Revisiting the age-prospective memory-paradox: the role of planning and task experience

“…time-monitoring, task inhibition and task switching) within these two PM phases (e.g. Cohen et al 2003;Kliegel et al 2004;Raskin et al 2011). In contrast, the phase of intention formation has rather been neglected.…”

The intention interference effect and aging: similar magnitude of effects for young and old adults

“…Cherry & Plauche, 2003;Cohen, Dixon, Lindsay, & Masson, 2003;Cohen, West, & Craik, 2001;McDaniel, Einstein, Stout, & Morgan, 2003). Among various proposed explanations for age differences, West and Craik (1999) suggested that after encoding, intentions may momentarily fall below consciousness and fluctuate over the course of task performance.…”