Individual differences in episodic memory abilities predict successful prospective memory output monitoring

Memory ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1159-1168 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Hunter Ball ◽  
Margarida Pitães ◽  
Gene A. Brewer
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hunter Ball ◽  
Philip Peper ◽  
Durna Alakbarova ◽  
Sam Gilbert ◽  
Gene Arnold Brewer

The current study examined whether offloading prospective memory (PM) demands onto the environment through the use of reminders eliminates PM differences typically seen between individuals that have poor or good working memory ability. Over two laboratory sessions scheduled one week apart, participants completed three versions of a PM offloading task with and without the use of reminders, along with multiple measures of working memory. Participants also generated a list of naturalistic intentions to fulfill between sessions and were given an intention to email the experimenter every day. They later indicated which intentions were completed with and without the use of reminders. Consistent with prior research, high working memory participants did better in both laboratory and naturalistic settings when having to rely on their own memory. Critically, however, working memory ability was no longer predictive of performance with the use of reminders. Participants with lower working memory also offloaded more often that high ability participants, but this was not optimally calibrated to actual PM performance. These findings suggest that offloading may be particularly beneficial for those with poor cognitive ability. The theoretical and applied ramifications of these findings are discussed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Uttl ◽  
Carmela A. White ◽  
Daniela Wong Gonzalez ◽  
Joanna McDouall ◽  
Carrie A. Leonard

Author(s):  
Daniel L. Schacter ◽  
Aleea L. Devitt ◽  
Donna Rose Addis

Episodic future thinking refers to the ability to imagine or simulate experiences that might occur in an individual’s personal future. It has been known for decades that cognitive aging is associated with declines in episodic memory, and recent research has documented correlated age-related declines in episodic future thinking. Previous research has considered both cognitive and neural mechanisms that are responsible for age-related changes in episodic future thinking, as well as effects of aging on the functions served by episodic future thinking. Studies concerned with mechanism indicate that multiple cognitive mechanisms contribute to changes in episodic future thinking during aging, including episodic memory retrieval, narrative style, and executive processes. Recent studies using an episodic specificity induction—brief training in recollecting episodic details of a recent experience—have proven useful in separating the contributions of episodic retrieval from other non-episodic processes during future thinking tasks in both old and young adults. Neuroimaging studies provide preliminary evidence of a role for age-related changes in default and executive brain networks in episodic future thinking and autobiographical planning. Studies concerned with function have examined age-related effects on the link between episodic future thinking and a variety of processes, including everyday problem-solving, prospective memory, prosocial intentions, and intertemporal choice/delay discounting. The general finding in these studies is for age-related reductions, consistent with the work on mechanisms that consistently reveals reduced episodic detail in older adults when they imagine future events. However, several studies have revealed that episodic simulation nonetheless confers some benefits for tasks tapping adaptive functions in older adults, such as problem-solving, prospective memory, and prosocial intentions, even though age-related deficits on these tasks are not eliminated or reduced by episodic future thinking.


2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 302-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Marsh ◽  
Jason L. Hicks ◽  
Thomas W. Hancock ◽  
Kirk Munsayac

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan S. Rose ◽  
Peter G. Rendell ◽  
Mark A. McDaniel ◽  
Ingo Aberle ◽  
Matthias Kliegel

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 366-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen D. Van Benthem ◽  
Chris M. Herdman ◽  
Rani G. Tolton ◽  
Jo-Anne LeFevre

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document