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

Abstract

The present study aimed at investigating agerelated differences in prospective memory performance using a paradigm with high ecological validity and experimental control. Thirty old and 30 young adults completed the Dresden Breakfast task; a meal preparation task in the lab that comprises several subtasks including event-and time-based prospective memory tasks. Participants were required to plan how to perform the task. Results showed that young adults outperformed old adults: they completed more subtasks, showed better event-and time-based prospective memory performance and planning quality. In contrast, old adults adhered to their plans more closely than young adults. Further exploratory gender-specific analyses indicated that old women did not differ from young men in time-based prospective memory performance, general task performance and time monitoring in contrast to old men. Possibly, differences in experience in breakfast preparation might account for these differential findings.

Gender differences in prospective memory in young and older adults

“…However, there are only few studies on gender differences in prospective memory, and their results are not conclusive. In two studies, one experimental study (Hering, Cortez, Kliegel, & Altgassen, 2014) and one large-scale study (Huppert, Johnson, & Nickson, 2000), where various prospective memory tasks were used, women performed significantly better than men. What is interesting, this difference was observed only in older adults.…”

Naturalistic assessments in virtual reality and in real life help resolve the age-prospective memory paradox

“…3 The time-accuracy threshold for one event-based task was set to within 60 seconds surrounding event-cue onset The Breakfast Task was administered to provide an objective measure of naturalistic PM in the lab under direct observation. The task design and analysis was based on similar paradigms developed by Craik & Bialystok (2006); Altgassan et al, (2012), Hering et al, (2014) and Feinkohl, Cress & Kimmerle (2016). Participants were asked to prepare a breakfast and set as many table settings as they could at each of the four stations at the table (See Figure 2).…”

“…correct/incorrect). Plans were scored based on a composite of three point-based categories: prioritization (number of tasks mentioned in the plan at any point), rule description (number of rules mentioned in the plan at any point), and specification of action (number of food sub-steps specified and number of specifically elaborated orders of tasks mentioned in the plan at any point) (Hering et al, 2014). See Results section for further description of scoring criteria.…”

Initial planning benefits complex prospective memory at a cost

“…The effect of initial plan quality on complex PM performance has been examined in studies by Kliegel, McDaniel, and Einstein (2000); Fuermaier et al (2013);and Hering, Cortez, Kliegel, and Altgassen (2014), in which all participants made an initial plan. Results have been mixed.…”

“…Ecological validity has been of interest in the prospective memory and planning fields because older adults outperform young adults on PM tasks in the real world while underperforming in the lab (e.g., Hering, et al, 2014) and because standard neuropsychological tests do not reveal planning deficits in survivors of brain injury who have marked deficits in real-world planning (e.g., Shallice & Burgess, 1991). Using a virtual environment is an alternate means to achieve ecological validity that has the advantage of simulating real-world experiences without requiring time-consuming, costly, or potentially unsafe experimental conditions (Banville, et al, 2010;Craik & Bialystock, 2006;Logie, Law, Trawley, & Nissan, 2010;McGeorge, Phillips, Crawford, Garden, Sala, & Milne, 2001;Rose, Rendell, McDaniel, Aberle, & Kliegel, 2010;Sweeney, Kersel, Morris, Manly, & Evans, 2010;Yip & Man, 2013).…”