On the Relationship Between Effort Toward an Ongoing Task and Cue Detection in Event-Based Prospective Memory.

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Marsh ◽  
Jason L. Hicks ◽  
Gabriel I. Cook
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Ongoing Task ◽  
Event Based ◽  
Cue Detection ◽  
The Relationship

Do Inhibitory Control Demands Affect Event-Based Prospective Memory Performance in ADHD?

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Altgassen ◽  
Andrea Koch ◽  
Matthias Kliegel
Keyword(s):  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Ongoing Task ◽  
Word Categorization ◽  
Entire Duration ◽  
Event Based ◽  
Cue Detection ◽  
The Impact

Objective: Empirical evidence on prospective memory (PM) in ADHD is inconsistent. Differential findings have been related to differential executive control demands. This study aimed at exploring the impact of inhibitory control on event-based PM performance in ADHD. Method: Eighteen adults with ADHD and 18 controls performed a word categorization task with an embedded event-based PM task. In addition, participants performed an acoustically presented task that put either low or high loads on inhibitory control processes. Results: Inhibitory load did not differentially affect PM performance: Across both inhibitory load conditions, individuals with ADHD showed reduced PM performance when compared with controls. Moreover, inhibitory load did not influence PM performance across both groups. Conclusion: Possibly, full inhibitory control resources are not necessary during the entire duration of an event-based PM task, but may suffice to be employed after cue detection when needing to interrupt the ongoing task. (J. of Att. Dis. 2019; 23(1) 51-56)

Prospective memory in amnestic mild cognitive impairment

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
STELLA KARANTZOULIS ◽  
ANGELA K. TROYER ◽  
JILL B. RICH
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Attention Switching ◽  
Memory For Intentions ◽  
Neuropsychological Evaluations ◽  
Event Based ◽  
Cue Detection ◽  
Error Types

AbstractIndividuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) often complain of difficulty remembering to carry out intended actions, consistent with findings of impaired prospective memory (PM) in this population. In this study, individuals with aMCI (N = 27) performed worse than healthy controls (N = 27) on the Memory for Intentions Screening Test (Raskin, 2004), including on time- and event-based subscales, and recognition of the intentions. The aMCI participants made more errors overall, but the proportion of the various error types did not differ between the two groups. Across all error types, both groups made more retrospective than prospective errors, especially on event-based PM tasks. Overall, the findings suggest that PM impairment in aMCI is associated with deficient cue detection involving both automatic (as in event-based tasks) and more strategic detection (as in time-based tasks) processes. These difficulties are likely due to a combination of problematic retrospective episodic memory (e.g., reduced encoding and/or consolidation of cue–intention pairings) and executive functions (e.g., decreased self-initiation, attention switching, and/or inhibition on memory tasks). Formal assessment of PM may help characterize the nature of the memory impairment among individuals with aMCI in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. (JINS, 2009, 15, 407–415.)

scholarly journals Prospective memory mediated by interoceptive accuracy: a psychophysiological approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 371 (1708) ◽  
pp. 20160005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoshi Umeda ◽  
Saiko Tochizawa ◽  
Midori Shibata ◽  
Yuri Terasawa
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Nervous Activity ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Cardiac Reactivity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Interoceptive Accuracy ◽  
Event Based ◽  
The Relationship

Previous studies on prospective memory (PM), defined as memory for future intentions, suggest that psychological stress enhances successful PM retrieval. However, the mechanisms underlying this notion remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that PM retrieval is achieved through interaction with autonomic nervous activity, which is mediated by the individual accuracy of interoceptive awareness, as measured by the heartbeat detection task. In this study, the relationship between cardiac reactivity and retrieval of delayed intentions was evaluated using the event-based PM task. Participants were required to detect PM target letters while engaged in an ongoing 2-back working memory task. The results demonstrated that individuals with higher PM task performance had a greater increase in heart rate on PM target presentation. Also, higher interoceptive perceivers showed better PM task performance. This pattern was not observed for working memory task performance. These findings suggest that cardiac afferent signals enhance PM retrieval, which is mediated by individual levels of interoceptive accuracy. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health’.

scholarly journals Differential Benefits of Prospective Memory Reminders Depending on Cognitive Load

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Peper ◽  
Durna Alakbarova ◽  
Hunter Ball
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Past Research ◽  
High Load ◽  
Retrospective Memory ◽  
Ongoing Task ◽  
Target Information ◽  
Low Load ◽  
Event Based ◽  
Load Conditions

Prospective memory (PM) refers to the ability to remember to complete a task at the appropriate moment in the future. Past research has found reminders can improve PM performance in both laboratory and naturalistic settings, but few projects have examined the circumstances when reminders are most beneficial. Three experiments in the present study tested the effect of reminders in an event-based PM task under different cognitive loads. In Experiments 1 (specific targets) and 2 (nonspecific targets), load was manipulated by having participants respond to a single (low load) or multiple (high load) targets. In Experiment 3, the association between pairs was manipulated by presenting strongly associated pairs (low load) or weakly associated pairs (high load). Half of the participants in each experiment received reminders whereby PM target information was placed at the top of the computer screen. Across all three experiments, it was found that the benefit of reminders was greater under high load than low load conditions. Importantly, the improvements in PM from reminders generally occurred without any additional cost to ongoing task performance and without any reduction of retrospective memory for the targets at the end of the experiment. Together these results suggest that reminders can be beneficial for reducing PM failures, particularly under high load, without the potential downside of increased effort expenditure.

Prior Task Experience and Comparable Stimulus Exposure Nullify Focal and Nonfocal Prospective Memory Retrieval Differences

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 1997-2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason L. Hicks ◽  
Bryan A. Franks ◽  
Samantha N. Spitler
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Memory Retrieval ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Ongoing Task ◽  
Instruction Condition ◽  
Focal Condition ◽  
Task Experience ◽  
Event Based

We explored the nature of focal versus nonfocal event-based prospective memory retrieval. In the context of a lexical decision task, people received an intention to respond to a single word (focal) in one condition and to a category label (nonfocal) for the other condition. Participants experienced both conditions, and their order was manipulated. The focal instruction condition was a single word presented multiple times. In Experiment 1, the stimuli in the nonfocal condition were different exemplars from a category, each presented once. In the nonfocal condition retrieval was poorer and reaction times were slower during the ongoing task as compared to the focal condition, replicating prior findings. In Experiment 2, the stimulus in the nonfocal condition was a single category exemplar repeated multiple times. When this single-exemplar nonfocal condition followed in time the single-item focal condition, focal versus nonfocal performance was virtually indistinguishable. These results demonstrate that people can modify their stimulus processing and expectations in event-based prospective memory tasks based on experience with the nature of prospective cues and with the ongoing task.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document