Frequency and strategicness of clock-checking explain detrimental age effects in time-based prospective memory.

Abstract

Previous studies report that monitoring the passing of time by checking a clock either frequently or strategically (immediately before a target time) improves the likelihood of remembering to perform a planned intention at a specific time (i.e., time-based prospective memory [TBPM]). Critically, strategicness of clock-checking is usually measured as the number of clock-checks during the last time interval before the target time—an operationalization where strategicness actually intertwines with absolute frequency of clock-checking and may not properly account for age effects in TBPM performance. To disentangle the respective contribution of frequent versus strategic clock-checking to the age-related decrease in TBPM performance, we propose a new, more fine-grained indicator of strategicness (i.e., relative clock-checking), which accounts for interindividual differences in the total frequency of clock-checking (i.e., absolute clock-checking). In this study, 223 participants from an adult lifespan sample (age range = 19–86, M = 45.61, SD = 17.24; 70% women) had to remember to push the ENTER key every 60 s while performing a two-back picture decision task. Together, relative and absolute clock-checking fully mediated the negative age effect on TBPM and explained 53.6% of the variance of TBPM performance. Complementary analyses revealed that both indicators were needed to fully mediate the effect of age on TBPM, but that strategic (i.e., relative) clock-checking was a stronger predictor of TBPM performance than absolute clock-checking. These results stress the importance of considering both aspects of clock-checking to investigate time monitoring in laboratory TBPM tasks and age effects therein, and provide avenues of intervention for improving older adults’ TBPM.

External Time Monitoring in Time‐Based Prospective Memory: An Integrative Framework

“…This work complements the one on individual difference in monitoring in EB PM (e.g., Brewer et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2003). In this regard, we followed up on previous work in TB PM which documented individual differences in monitoring (Harris & Wilkins, 1982; Joly‐Burra et al., 2022; Labelle, Graf, Grondin, & Gagné‐Roy, 2009; Mäntylä, 2003; McFarland & Glisky, 2009; Mioni & Stablum, 2014; Mioni et al., 2020; Vanneste et al., 2016), but we expanded it significantly by offering a more detailed quantitative account of how the individual monitoring process develops over time. Methodologically, our study offers simple ways to quantify compliance to the exponential growth of clock checks over time and compliance to interval reduction monitoring (the IR indices).…”

“…Considering that some of our datasets included older adults, who typically show worse performance in laboratory TB PM task (cf. Joly‐Burra et al., 2022), and clock check limitations or long intervals (with potentially larger estimation errors), we deemed useful to include a quadratic function that might also capture clock checks functional to calibrate the internal clock in the first minutes of the task in some groups of participants and/or in more difficult conditions. The linear function was selected as a baseline, following the idea that participants could at least intuitively guess that it is a good idea to increase the frequency of clock checking as the deadline approaches, but possibly not always understand (or be able to follow behaviorally) the idea of a steeper increase in monitoring frequency closer to the deadline 3…”

“…As previously stated, Kvavilashvili and Fisher (2007) and Harris and Wilkins (1982) found positive associations between more frequent clock checking closer to the deadline and PM performance. Joly-Burra et al (2022) proposed a relative clock-checking index, by dividing the number of clock checks during the last interval of the PM period by the total number of clock checks. This indicator and the total number of clock checks explained a sizable fraction of variance in PM performance and mediated the negative relation between age and PM performance.…”

“…This may have obscured individual differences in external time monitoring, and their relations with performance. Indeed, studies in EB TM showed sizable individual differences in monitoring (e.g., Brewer, Knight, Marsh, & Unsworth, 2010; Martin, Kliegel, & McDaniel, 2003), suggesting that this may also be the case for TB PM (see also Harris & Wilkins, 1982; Joly‐Burra et al., 2022; McFarland & Glisky, 2009; Mioni & Stablum, 2014; Mioni, Grondin, McLennan, & Stablum, 2020; Vanneste, Baudouin, Bouazzaoui, & Taconnat, 2016). Finally, the connection between external monitoring and TB PM performance has not always been scrutinized.…”

“…Joly‐Burra et al. (2022) proposed a relative clock‐checking index, by dividing the number of clock checks during the last interval of the PM period by the total number of clock checks. This indicator and the total number of clock checks explained a sizable fraction of variance in PM performance and mediated the negative relation between age and PM performance.…”