The impact of age, ongoing task difficulty, and cue salience on preschoolers’ prospective memory performance: The role of executive function

An individual difference perspective on focal versus nonfocal prospective memory

“…Notably, all used either a focal or a nonfocal PM task and no study so far was designed to disentangle the processes related to the two PM task types. For example, inhibition, but neither shifting nor updating was found to be associated with focal PM (Kliegel, Ramuschkat, & Martin, 2003;Mahy, Moses, & Kliegel, 2014). Nonfocal PM performance, on the other hand, was found to be associated with inhibition and shifting, but not with updating (Schnitzspahn, Stahl, Zeintl, Kaller, & Kliegel, 2013).…”

“…Therefore, when encountering the PM target cue, participants have to inhibit the dominant ongoing task response to successfully perform the PM action (see also e.g. Kliegel et al, 2003;Mahy et al, 2014, showing substantial associations of focal PM performance with inhibition capabilities). Notably, we did not find a substantial association of inhibition with nonfocal PM as reported by for example Schnitzspahn et al (2013).…”

“…This underlines the need to extend PM models from retrieval processes (such as PM cue detection and retrieval of the intention) to post-retrieval processes (such as response management and intention execution) and to specify their particular demands on controlled attention. An example may be inhibitory capacities possibly required for response management to execute the intended action in the post-retrieval phase (e.g., Ihle et al, 2013): Given that in focal PM the intention may be relatively automatically retrieved, an appropriate execution of the PM action in focal PM tasks would first require to inhibit the dominant ongoing task response and then to carry out the PM action (see for example Ihle et al, 2013;Kliegel et al, 2003;Mahy et al, 2014). Therefore, an appropriate conceptualization of focal versus nonfocal PM may not be a distinction between automatic or spontaneous versus controlled processing of PM, but rather a more fine-grained perspective that considers the coexisting contribution of automatic and controlled processes within the different process phases of PM.…”

“…This is because the focal PM target cue has to be processed in the same manner as the regular stimuli of the ongoing task and could be spontaneously retrieved (see McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). Therefore, an appropriate PM response would first require to inhibit the dominant ongoing task response and then to execute the PM action as instructed (see for example Kliegel et al, 2003;Mahy et al, 2014, showing substantial associations of focal PM performance with inhibition). However, for nonfocal PM, different predictions seem reasonable.…”

Time’s up! Involvement of metamemory knowledge, executive functions, and time monitoring in children’s prospective memory performance

“…In both cases, the main barrier to success is that the prospective task must be carried out at the same time as a cognitively demanding ongoing activity; in an experimental setting, the ongoing activity might be an n-back working memory task, for example (Ellis & Kvavilashvili, 2000;Zinke et al, 2010). In this context, like adults' performance (e.g., Schnitzspahn, Stahl, Zeintl, Kaller, & Kliegel, 2013), children's PM performance is usually shown to be related to the difficulty of the ongoing task as Running head: Metamemory Knowledge and Prospective Memory 5 well as to their level of executive abilities Mackinlay, Kliegel, & Mäntylä, 2009;Mahy, Moses, & Kliegel, 2014;Ward, Shum, McKinlay, Baker, & Wallace, 2007; for a review of the involvement of executive functions in children's PM development, see Mahy, Moses, & Kliegel, in press). In addition, time-based memory performance is also shown to be linked to participants' use of an effective time monitoring strategy (Kretschmer, Voigt, Friedrich, Pfeiffer, & Kliegel, 2013;Mäntylä, Carelli, & Forman, 2007;Voigt, Aberle, Schonfeld, & Kliegel, 2011;Voigt at al., 2014;Zinke et al, 2010).…”