Prospective memory reminders: A laboratory investigation of initiation source and age effects

Abstract

Prior research indicates that, in some circumstances, reminders may facilitate prospective remembering. However, it remains unclear whether this effect is dependent on the initiation source (self vs. external), whether it is moderated by task type (event vs. time based), or whether the provision of standardized reminders particularly benefits older adults. In the current study, young (n = 48) and older adults (n = 47) were tested on a laboratory-based prospective memory task in which they encountered three counterbalanced reminder conditions: no reminders, self-initiated reminders, and experimenter-initiated reminders. The results indicated that while the provision of reminders enhanced prospective memory performance, no difference was seen between self-initiated and experimenter-initiated reminder conditions, nor was there any interaction with age or prospective memory type (event vs. time based). These data support the role of both self- and externally generated external reminders as an aid to prospective remembering. However, the absence of any interaction with age is not consistent with theoretical models of ageing that consider the provision of such reminders to reduce strategic demands (or increase automatic processing).

A fresh pair of eyes on prospective memory monitoring

“…Of particular interest was the finding that a cue-driven monitoring process was directly initiated by subtle cues, in the form of semantically related images that were embedded in the continuous task. Past studies have revealed that contextual cues in the environment often prompt retrieval of a future intention (Harris & Wilkins, 1982, Henry et al, 2012Kuhlmann & Rummel, 2014;Kvavilashvilli & Fisher, 2007), and the present research extended this finding with the observation that contextual cues can trigger retrieval of the future intention, thereby prompting participants to overtly monitor for prospective memory targets. Salient external cues have been shown to be helpful to adults (Guajardo & Best, 2000) in a variety of laboratory studies (Einstein & McDaniel, 1996;Kim & Mayhorn, 2008;Villa, 1998), including investigations of air traffic control (Loft et al, 2011).…”

“…Both self-report and behavioral data suggest that environmental cues can serve as a reminder for a prospective memory intention (Harris & Wilkins, 1982;Henry, Rendell, Phillips, Dunlop, & Kliegel, 2012;Kvavilashvili & Fisher, 2007) and that environmental cues can be used to support prospective memory in laboratory simulated air traffic control scenarios (Loft, Smith, & Bhaskara, 2011). It remains unclear exactly how environmental cues interact with the cognitive mechanisms supporting prospective memory, although some research has suggested that people will adjust how they allocate attention to the prospective memory task if they are instructed about contextual cues that will accompany the prospective memory target (Kuhlmann & Rummel, 2014).…”

Test–retest consistency of Virtual Week: A task to investigate prospective memory

“…Participants move around the board with the roll of a dice. The time of the virtual day is displayed on a virtual time clock calibrated to the position of the token on the board (every 2 squares the time increased 15 minutes) (e.g., Griffiths et al, 2012;Henry et al, 2012;Mioni et al, 2013;Rendell et al, 2011). As participants circuit the board, they have decisions to make and things to remember to perform.…”

“…Virtual Week is a very promising task for investigating PM performance and it has been extensively used with normal ageing (Aberle, Rendell, Rose, McDaniel, & Kliegel, 2010;Henry, Rendell, Phillips, Dunlop, & Kliegel, 2012;Margrett, Reese-Melancon, & Rendell, 2011;Rendell & Craik, 2000;Rose, Rendell, McDaniel, Aberle, & Kliegel, 2010;Rendell et al, 2011) and different clinical populations: those with abnormal ageing Thompson et al, 2010;Will et al, 2009), patients with multiple sclerosis (Kardiasmenos, Clawson, Wilken, & Wallin, 2008;Rendell, Jensen et al, 2007a;West et al, 2007), schizophrenics (Henry, Rendell, Kliegel, & Altgassen, 2007;Henry, Rendell, Rogers, Altgassen, & Kliegel, 2011), substance users (Leitz, Morgan, Bisby, Rendell, & Curran, 2009;Paraskevaides et al, 2010;Rendell, Gray, Henry, & Tolan, 2007;Rendell, Mazur, & Henry, 2009), Parkinson's patients (Foster et al, 2013), and patients with brain damage (Kim, Craik, Luo, & Ween, 2009;Mioni et al, 2013). Virtual Week has been shown to be sensitive to PM deficits with each of these groups: normal ageing, abnormal ageing and the various clinical groups.…”

Strategic use of reminders: Influence of both domain-general and task-specific metacognitive confidence, independent of objective memory ability

“…It is of practical significance because external artifacts and reminders can be effective tools for remembering delayed intentions (Allen, 2002;Henry, Rendell, Phillips, Dunlop, & Kliegel, 2012;Heylighen & Vidal, 2008;Maylor, 1990). If we are to understand how intentions are fulfilled in everyday life it is therefore important to understand how we decide whether or not to set reminders, and what interventions might affect these decisions.…”