Nonfocal Prospective Memory Task Research Articles

Self-reported strategy use and prospective memory: The roles of cue focality and task importance.

Interest in the metacognitive aspects of prospective memory (PM) is growing. Yet, the interplay between participants' metacognitive awareness of PM task demands and features that contribute to successful PM require further attention. To this aim, participants in the current study completed laboratory-based PM tasks of varying difficulty (cue focality: focal, nonfocal-category, or nonfocal-syllable) and reported their strategy use and perceptions of PM task importance. Most participants reported using a strategy regardless of cue focality. However, only under the most challenging condition (i.e., nonfocal-syllable) did participants who reported using a strategy exhibit better PM performance compared to those who did not use a strategy. Additionally, strategy use and cue focality were independently associated with greater costs to ongoing task performance: strategy users exhibited greater slowing relative to individuals who did not use a strategy, and the extent of slowing was greater as the task difficulty increased across cue focality. Finally, perceived task importance appeared to play an important role in the interactive link between cue focality and strategy use on PM performance for the more challenging, nonfocal PM tasks. Specifically, moderation analyses suggested that greater perceived task importance alone may improve the likelihood of PM success for moderately challenging PM tasks (i.e., nonfocal-category), but for the most challenging PM tasks (i.e., nonfocal-syllable), individuals' strategy use was still associated with better PM performance. The present study expands our understanding of metacognition's role in PM performance and has implications for everyday PM performance.

How do the cognitive processes matter in the event-based preschoolers' prospective memory?

Prospective memory (PM) is the ability to remember to perform an intended action at a specific future moment. The current study examined the impact of age, task focality, and cue salience on PM in children aged 2 to 6 years, based on the multiprocess theory of PM and the executive framework of PM development. Additionally, the study explored the relationship between various cognitive abilities and their association with PM performance. A total of 224 preschool-aged children, aged 2-6, engaged in event-based PM tasks with varying cognitive demands. The tasks were either focal or nonfocal, with salient or nonsalient cues. Additionally, individual differences in cognitive abilities were measured. The results support previous indications that even very young children can successfully complete event-based PM tasks. The accuracy of PM display improved with age, especially between the ages of 3 and 4. Better performance was observed in focal PM tasks compared to nonfocal PM tasks. Additionally, preschoolers' PM performance correlated with various cognitive abilities, including fluid intelligence, retrospective memory, inhibitory control, working memory, and language ability. These correlations varied depending on the child's age and the task's nature. For both focal and nonfocal PM tasks, cognitive abilities partially mediated the relationship between age and PM performance. In summary, this study comprehensively explores the specific roles played by age and fundamental cognitive abilities in event-based PM performance among preschool-aged children.

A thorough examination of cue specificity and task-appropriateness in defining focal and nonfocal prospective memory tasks

ABSTRACT Prospective memory (PM) – memory for future intentions – has a core term called focality which describes how closely a PM task relates to an ongoing task. When a close relationship exists between an ongoing and PM task, the task is classified as focal (loose relationships are classified as nonfocal). Competing PM theories differ primarily in explanations for how focality changes participants’ approaches. Researchers classify PM intentions as focal or nonfocal in two ways: (1) task appropriateness, congruency (TAP) or incongruency (TIP) of processing to complete both tasks, and (2) cue specificity, specific or general task cues. Independently manipulating this ambiguity in defining “focality” was our current focus. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group, a focal PM condition, or one of three nonfocal conditions. Their ongoing task involved a semantic judgment (Experiment 1) or an orthographic judgment (Experiment 2). Cue specificity impacted PM accuracy consistently, favouring specific cues. Task-appropriateness impacted PM accuracy in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2 which showed protective effects for specific, whole-word PM cues – emphasizing the role that deeper processing has on PM success. These studies highlight the ambiguity in the operational definition of focality and provide the groundwork for continued refinement of the definition.

Prospective memory in bilinguals and monolinguals: ERP and behavioural correlates of prospective processing in bilinguals

Prospective memory (PM) allows us to form intentions and execute them in the future. Successful retrieval of prospective intentions depends on adequate context monitoring and disengagement from the ongoing task. These processes are also central in predicting incoming language information and guiding language production in bilinguals. We investigated if different bilingual experiences (early/late bilinguals, monolinguals) modulate performance in PM tasks that varied in attentional requirements (focal vs. non-focal). Behavioural and event-related potential (ERP) results indicated that early bilinguals differed from late bilinguals and monolinguals in how they performed the prospective task. Specifically, they showed larger differences between the ongoing activity and the prospective task in the N300 and P3b components when performing the more difficult non-focal PM task, indicating that they engaged in monitoring/updating to adapt to the task’s demands. These differences were not observed in late bilinguals and monolinguals, suggesting that prospective processing is dependent on the bilingual experience.

Prospective Memory and Regional Functional Connectivity in Subcortical Ischemic Vascular Disease.

Objectives: Patients with subcortical ischemic vascular disease (SIVD) often have prominent frontal dysfunction. However, it remains unclear how SIVD affects prospective memory (PM), which strongly relies on the frontoparietal network. The present study aimed to investigate PM performance in patients with early stage SIVD as compared to those with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to older adults with normal cognition, and to explore the neural correlates of PM deficits.Method: Patients with very-mild to mild dementia due to SIVD or AD and normal controls (NC) aged above 60 years were recruited. Seventy-three participants (20 SIVD, 22 AD, and 31 NC) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cognitive screening tests, and a computerized PM test. Sixty-five of these participants (19 SIVD, 20 AD, and 26 NC) also received resting-state functional MRI.Results: The group with SIVD had significantly fewer PM hits than the control group on both time-based and non-focal event-based PM tasks. Among patients in the very early stage, only those with SIVD but not AD performed significantly worse than the controls. Correlational analyses showed that non-focal event-based PM in SIVD was positively correlated with regional homogeneity in bilateral superior and middle frontal gyri, while time-based PM was not significantly associated with regional homogeneity in any of the regions of interest within the dorsal frontoparietal regions.Conclusions: The findings of this study highlight the vulnerability of non-focal event-based PM to the disruption of regional functional connectivity in bilateral superior and middle frontal gyri in patients with SIVD.

Comparing costs in time-based and event-based prospective memory

ABSTRACT Although much recent research has focused on event-based prospective memory (PM), fewer studies have compared event- and time-based PM. In the current study, two experiments were conducted to directly compare ongoing task costs of focal and non-focal event-based tasks with a time-based task. In the second experiment, an external reminder of the task was present to test whether this reduced the cost of the time-based task. PM accuracy was significantly greater for the focal conditions, as predicted. Response times (RT) were highest in the non-focal tasks, with similar RTs in the focal and time-based tasks. Clock check frequency was significantly related to making a PM response in the time-based task, with clock checks increasing as the 7 min target time approached. While time-based tasks may be more difficult to complete, they do not seem to result in the speed cost to an ongoing task that non-focal PM tasks do.

Investigating prospective memory via eye tracking: No evidence for a monitoring deficit in older adults

Prospective memory (PM) refers to remembering to perform intended actions in the future. Older adults in particular have been shown to be negatively affected by PM tasks that require a high amount of attentional resources (i.e., nonfocal tasks). This age-related PM deficit has been attributed to reduced target monitoring in this age group older adults. However, this conclusion was based on indirect measures of monitoring, such as costs of the ongoing task.The present study set out to 1) investigate older adults' PM target monitoring by, for the first time, employing a direct measure (i.e., eye tracking), 2) assess differences in monitoring between PM tasks that differ in their focality, and 3) examine whether differences in PM monitoring can indeed explain older adults' reduced PM performance in nonfocal tasks.Results demonstrate that while older, but not younger adults, showed reduced performance in a nonfocal PM task, overt monitoring (eye movements) of these groups did not differ between focality conditions. Further analyses showed that older adults' performance was still reduced on the strategically more demanding task after controlling for overt target monitoring (i.e., including only trials in which the participant monitored).In contrast to indirect measures of cue monitoring, our findings illustrate that older adults' deficits on nonfocal PM tasks cannot (exclusively) be explained by reduced monitoring. Instead, processing that takes place after target monitoring are discussed as possible mechanisms underlying older adults' reduced PM performance in nonfocal tasks.

Age Differences in Prospective Memory: A Further Evaluation of the Executive Framework

ABSTRACTAccording to the executive framework of prospective memory (PM), age-related differences in PM performance are mediated by age-related differences in executive functioning (EF). The present study further explored this framework by examining which specific components of EF are associated with PM differences between and within three age groups. A group of children (7–9 years; N = 108), adolescents (12–14 years; N = 112), and adults (17–23 years; N = 106) performed focal- and non-focal event-based PM (EBPM) tasks, a time-based PM (TBPM) task, and tasks measuring EF components. Differences between age groups in focal EBPM, non-focal EBPM, and TBPM performance were mediated by, respectively, differences in interference control and response inhibition, performance on the ongoing task, and differences in working memory and response inhibition. However, within-age group analyses only revealed WM updating as significant predictor of TBPM performance in the adolescent group. These results support and further qualify the executive framework of PM. The differences in outcome dependent on the examined age range might be important for explaining mixed results of previous studies regarding the precise EF components underlying age-related PM task performance differences.

How did I remember to do that? Self-reported strategy use for laboratory prospective memory tasks

ABSTRACTThe role of metacognition in prospective memory (PM) has received relatively little attention. This study combined data from several experiments to identify the strategy repertoire employed during a classic laboratory PM task and to determine whether self-reported strategy was related to performance. Participants (N = 668) completed either a focal or nonfocal PM task embedded in an ongoing lexical decision task. The results indicated that participants reported the same strategy repertoire regardless of PM task focality. Participants who reported using a strategy performed better than those who did not report using one, and this was especially true under nonfocal conditions. Self-reported strategy use was also associated with more cost to the ongoing task when the opportunity to complete the PM task was present. These findings add to what is known about the metacognitive components of PM and underscore the need for additional research in this area.

Retrieval in prospective memory: Multiple processes or just delay?

In prospective memory (PM) research, a common finding is that PM accuracy is greater using focal, rather than nonfocal, cues. Under the multiprocess framework, the high PM performance for focal cues (cues that facilitate noticing of the target), often in the absence of task interference, reflects people's ability to rely on spontaneous retrieval processes. By contrast, nonfocal cues (cues that do not facilitate noticing) require monitoring. A competing explanation suggests that a single process underlies focal versus nonfocal PM: People adjust their delay in ongoing responding to allow enough time for PM information to reach awareness (delay theory). Participants' lower nonfocal performance arises because they fail to delay responding to a sufficient degree; with focal cues, the PM information accumulation rate is fast enough that no delay is necessary (and thus most everyone performs well). We sought to improve nonfocal PM performance by pairing a PM task with fast information accumulation to an ongoing task for which the requisite information accumulated more slowly. Reasoning from delay theory, we expected PM accuracy levels in this nonfocal PM task to approximate that observed in a focal PM task (for which the PM tasks were identical). In contrast to this expectation, the focal condition displayed significantly higher PM accuracy (despite demonstrating a reliably shorter response delay). In light of these findings, we concluded that the multiprocess interpretation is favoured.

Stress and prospective memory: What is the role of cortisol?

Studies investigating effects of acute stress on Prospective Memory (PM) so far yielded heterogeneous findings. Although results were commonly attributed to stress-induced changes in cortisol, past research did not disentangle effects of cortisol from the effects of sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activation and cognitive reappraisal. The present study therefore aimed at investigating the mere effect of cortisol on PM tasks that differently involve prefrontal brain regions (nonfocal vs. focal PM tasks) via a placebo-controlled oral pharmacological intake of 10 mg hydrocortisone mimicking physiological responses to stress. Contrary to our prediction, enhanced levels of cortisol did not affect PM accuracy and monitoring costs, neither for the focal nor the nonfocal PM tasks. These results suggest that changes of cortisol levels do not underlie potential stress effects on PM. Further exploratory results revealed that PM performance was higher in the 3 pm than in the 1 pm placebo group. This means that PM performance, independently of effects of cortisol, seem to vary throughout the day.

How executive functions are associated with event-based and time-based prospective memory during childhood

A key developmental task of childhood is to gain autonomy and independence from parents and caregivers. Critical to this individualization process is the development of prospective memory (PM), the capacity to remember to carry out future intentions. In recent studies, children's PM performance has been associated with executive functions (EF). A closer inspection of the literature, however, suggests a differential impact of the three EF (updating, inhibition, and shifting) across different PM task types. The current study examined EF and PM capacities of 212 6- to 11-year-old children, examining for the first time both focal and nonfocal event-based PM tasks as well as a time-based PM task in a single sample. Results show that age-differences did not persist above and beyond age differences in children's executive resources. Specifically, updating predicted children's performance on all PM tasks, inhibition predicted performance on both event-based PM tasks, whereas shifting was specifically deployed by the nonfocal event-based task. Supplementary analyses of the time-based PM task illustrate how children monitor the progression of time and how preparatory processes support PM task performance. In sum, the current study presents the first comprehensive look at the specific role of age and three core EF in school-aged children's PM performance.

The Cost of Prospective Memory in Children: The Role of Cue Focality.

Prospective memory (PM) is an essential ability in daily life, since it involves remembering to perform an intention. While PM largely develops during childhood and adolescence, its underlying mechanisms are still poorly understood. In general, age differences in PM have been found with tasks in which the prospective cues are not part of the ongoing activity (non-focal PM tasks). In the present study, we evaluated the cognitive cost produced by a PM task over the ongoing activity by comparing the performance of a single-task condition with that of an ongoing activity condition involving a prospective intention. Specifically, to determine the impact of cue focality on performance as a function of age, we tested two groups of children (6 and 11 years old) in three experimental conditions: single, focal and non-focal prospective cues. In the single-task condition, children were only asked to perform the ongoing task (to categorize images as animal or non-animal). In the focal condition, in addition to performing the ongoing activity, participants were asked to press different keys whenever the image appearing on the screen was a kite or a ball. In the non-focal condition, children were to press the keys if the color of the frame of the screen changed to magenta or gray. Although reaction times were greater for the non-focal conditions in both age groups, the results showed worse performance on the ongoing activity for both the focal and the non-focal conditions (relative to the single-task condition) in the younger children. This difference was less pronounced in older children so that response times for focal and non-focal cues differed from the single condition, but the difference in performance between focal and single task conditions was not reliable. These findings, which are partly in line with the dual process framework (McDaniel et al., 2015), suggest that while non-focal prospective cues compromise attentional control in younger and older children, focal cues seem to rely on less effortful processes in older children.

The general facilitation effect of implementation intentions on prospective memory performance in patients with schizophrenia

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Prospective memory (PM) refers to remembering to execute a planned intention in the future. It can be divided into event- and time-based, according to the nature of the PM cue. Event-based PM cues can be classified as focal or non-focal. Patients with schizophrenia (SCZ) have been found to be impaired in both event- and time-based PM. PM has been found to be improved by implementation intentions, which is an encoding strategy in the format of “if X then Y”. This study examined the effect of implementation intentions on a non-focal event-based and a time-based PM task in patients with SCZ.Methods: Forty-two patients with SCZ and 42 healthy controls were allocated to either an implementation intention or a control PM instruction condition and were asked to complete two PM tasks. Results: Implementation intentions was found to improve performance in both the non-focal event-based and time-based PM tasks in patients with SCZ and healthy controls, with no costs to the ongoing task. The improvement in time-based PM performance in the implementation intentions condition was partially mediated by the frequency of clock checking behaviour. Conclusions: Implementation intentions can facilitate PM performance in patients with SCZ and has the potential to be used as a clinical intervention tool.

The Effect of Stereotype Threat on Age Differences in Prospective Memory Performance: Differential Effects on Focal Versus Nonfocal Tasks.

The current study examined the effects of stereotype threat on prospective memory (PM) performance in younger versus older adults by using a focal (i.e., low cognitive demands) and a nonfocal (i.e., high cognitive demands) PM task. Sixty younger and 60 older adults performed an event-based PM task, in which task instructions were experimentally manipulated. Half of the participants received instructions that emphasized the memory component of the task (memory condition; i.e., high stereotype threat for older adults) whereas the other half was instructed that the task evaluated participants' reading-ability (reading condition; i.e., low stereotype threat). Older adults' PM performance was worse than younger adults' only in the memory condition and these effects were specific for nonfocal PM cues as well as for old-old adults. Conceptually, this indicates that stereotype threat particularly impacts age effects for cognitive processes associated with executive control and that this particularly affects old-old adults. Therefore, the current findings illustrate for the first time that age differences in PM can be influenced by stereotype threat and suggest changes in controlled attention as possible cognitive pathway.

The interplay of intention maintenance and cue monitoring in younger and older adults’ prospective memory

The retention phase of a prospective memory (PM) task poses different challenges, including demands to store or maintain an intended action and to realize the right moment for action execution. The interplay of these processes in younger and older adults has not been explored so far. In this study, the authors examined the impact of maintenance load and task focality on PM in 84 younger and in 83 older adults. Results indicated that PM performance and ongoing task response times were strongly affected by maintenance load and age. However, a focality effect only emerged when maintenance load was low but not when attentional resources were deployed for maintaining a more demanding intention. These findings suggest that maintenance and monitoring requirements compete for similar attentional resources. Furthermore, maintenance load may affect postretrieval processes through its impact on working-memory resources, which can restrain the typical advantage of focal over nonfocal PM tasks.

An individual difference perspective on focal versus nonfocal prospective memory.

The present study targeted the question of whether focal versus nonfocal prospective memory (PM) can be distinguished on a construct level, and if so, to what extent individual differences in these two constructs are related to individual differences in facets of controlled attention and episodic memory. 315 individuals (aged 20-68years) were administered focal and nonfocal PM tasks as well as indicators measuring updating, inhibition, shifting, and episodic memory. Latent variable modeling revealed that focal and nonfocal PM were two distinguishable but related constructs. Furthermore, analyses showed that focal PM was more strongly related to inhibition, while nonfocal PM was more strongly related to shifting. Present data support the conceptual hypothesis that focal and nonfocal PM should be conceptualized as two distinguishable but related constructs. Moreover, they suggest that both have some but distinct associations to controlled attention.

Let it go: the flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a non-focal prospective memory task

Remembering to perform a delayed intention is referred to as prospective memory (PM). In two studies, participants performed an Eriksen flanker task with an embedded PM task (they had to remember to press F1 if a pre-specified cue appeared). In study 1, participants performed a flanker task with either a concurrent PM task or a delayed PM task (instructed to carry out the intention in a later different task). In the delayed PM condition, the PM cues appeared unexpectedly early and we examined whether attention would be captured by the PM cue even though they were not relevant. Results revealed ongoing task costs solely in the concurrent PM condition but no significant task costs in the delayed PM condition showing that attention was not captured by the PM cue when it appeared in an irrelevant context. In study 2, we compared a concurrent PM condition (exactly as in Study 1) to a PM forget condition in which participants were told at a certain point during the flanker task that they no longer had to perform the PM task. Analyses revealed that participants were able to switch off attending to PM cues when instructed to forget the PM task. Results from both studies demonstrate the flexibility of monitoring as evidenced by the presence versus absence of costs in the ongoing flanker task implying that selective attention, like a lens, can be adjusted to attend or ignore, depending on intention relevance.

Prospective memory and frontal lobe function

The study sought to examine the role of frontal lobe functioning in focal prospective memory (PM) performance and its relation to PM deficit in older adults. PM and working memory (WM) differences were studied in younger aged (n = 21), older aged (n = 20), and frontal injury (n = 14) groups. An event-based focal PM task was employed and three measures of WM were administered. The younger aged group differed from the other two groups in showing significantly higher scores on PM and on one of the WM measures, but there were no differences at a statistically significant level between the older aged group and the frontal injury groups on any of the memory measures. There were, however, some differences in correlations with a WM measure between groups. It is concluded that there are similarities and differences in the deficits in PM between older adults and patients with frontal lobe injury on focal as well as nonfocal PM tasks.

Modeling criterion shifts and target checking in prospective memory monitoring.

Event-based prospective memory (PM) involves remembering to perform intended actions after a delay. An important theoretical issue is whether and how people monitor the environment to execute an intended action when a target event occurs. Performing a PM task often increases the latencies in ongoing tasks. However, little is known about the reasons for this cost effect. This study uses diffusion model analysis to decompose monitoring processes in the PM paradigm. Across 4 experiments, performing a PM task increased latencies in an ongoing lexical decision task. A large portion of this effect was explained by consistent increases in boundary separation; additional increases in nondecision time emerged in a nonfocal PM task and explained variance in PM performance (Experiment 1), likely reflecting a target-checking strategy before and after the ongoing decision (Experiment 2). However, we found that possible target-checking strategies may depend on task characteristics. That is, instructional emphasis on the importance of ongoing decisions (Experiment 3) or the use of focal targets (Experiment 4) eliminated the contribution of nondecision time to the cost of PM, but left participants in a mode of increased cautiousness. The modeling thus sheds new light on the cost effect seen in many PM studies and suggests that people approach ongoing activities more cautiously when they need to remember an intended action.