scholarly journals Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes?

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 736-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael K. Scullin ◽  
Mark A. McDaniel ◽  
Jill T. Shelton ◽  
Ji Hae Lee
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Memory Monitoring

scholarly journals Differential Focal and Nonfocal Prospective Memory Accuracy in a Demographically Diverse Group of Nondemented Community-Dwelling Older Adults

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1015-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Y. Chi ◽  
Laura A. Rabin ◽  
Avner Aronov ◽  
Joshua Fogel ◽  
Ashu Kapoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Medial Temporal Lobe ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Subjective Cognitive Decline ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Control Functions ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Spontaneous Retrieval

AbstractAlthough prospective memory (PM) is compromised in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), it is unclear which specific cognitive processes underlie these PM difficulties. We investigated older adults’ performance on a computerized event-based focal versus nonfocal PM task that made varying demands on the amount of attentional control required to support intention retrieval. Participants were nondemented individuals (mean age=81.8 years; female=66.1%) enrolled in a community-based longitudinal study, including those with amnestic MCI (aMCI), nonamnestic MCI (naMCI), subjective cognitive decline (SCD), and healthy controls (HC). Participants included in the primary analysis (n=189) completed the PM task and recalled and/or recognized both focal and nonfocal PM cues presented in the task. Participants and their informants also completed a questionnaire assessing everyday PM failures. Relative to HC, those with aMCI and naMCI were significantly impaired in focal PM accuracy (p<.05). In a follow-up analysis that included 13 additional participants who successfully recalled and/or recognized at least one of the two PM cues, the naMCI group showed deficits in nonfocal PM accuracy (p<.05). There was a significant negative correlation between informant reports of PM difficulties and nonfocal PM accuracy (p<.01). PM failures in aMCI may be primarily related to impairment of spontaneous retrieval processes associated with the medial temporal lobe system, while PM failures in naMCI potentially indicate additional deficits in executive control functions and prefrontal systems. The observed focal versus nonfocal PM performance profiles in aMCI and naMCI may constitute specific behavioral markers of PM decline that result from compromise of separate neurocognitive systems. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–13)

A characterization of individual differences in prospective memory monitoring using the Complex Ongoing Serial Task.

2012 ◽  
Vol 141 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam C. Savine ◽  
Mark A. McDaniel ◽  
Jill Talley Shelton ◽  
Michael K. Scullin
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Serial Task ◽  
Memory Monitoring

scholarly journals A fresh pair of eyes on prospective memory monitoring

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 837-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Talley Shelton ◽  
Eddie A. Christopher
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Memory Monitoring

scholarly journals Reducing False Recognition in the Deese-Roediger/McDermott Paradigm: Related Lures Reveal How Distinctive Encoding Improves Encoding and Monitoring Processes

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Huff ◽  
Glen E. Bodner ◽  
Matthew R. Gretz
Keyword(s):  
Signal Detection ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Test Generation ◽  
False Recognition ◽  
Correct Recognition ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Drm Paradigm ◽  
Generation Task ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Memory Monitoring

In the Deese-Roediger/McDermott (DRM) paradigm, distinctive encoding of list items typically reduces false recognition of critical lures relative to a read-only control. This reduction can be due to enhanced item-specific processing, reduced relational processing, and/or increased test-based monitoring. However, it is unclear whether distinctive encoding reduces false recognition in a selective or global manner. To examine this question, participants studied DRM lists using a distinctive item-specific anagram generation task and then completed a recognition test which included both DRM critical lures and either strongly related lures (Experiment 1) or weakly related lures (Experiment 2). Compared to a read-control group, the generate groups showed increased correct recognition and decreased false recognition of all lure types. We then estimated the separate contributions of encoding and retrieval processes using signal-detection indices. Generation improved correct recognition by both increasing encoding of memory information for list words and by increasing memory monitoring at test. Generation reduced false recognition by reducing the encoding of memory information and by increasing memory monitoring at test. The reduction in false recognition was equivalent for critical lures and related lures, indicating that generation globally reduces the encoding of related non-presented items at study (not just critical lures), while globally increasing list-theme-based monitoring at test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document