As a result of these findings, now, the so-called age PM paradox is no longer popular and research has shifted its focus toward cognitive factors more likely to explain individual differences in PM, such as executive functions, retrospective memory or IQ ( Hainselin et al., 2011 Azzopardi et al., 2015 Koo et al., 2021). Another important parameter affecting age differences is the source of PM task generation: participants performed better with self-generated intentions rather than experimenter-generated actions to perform.
Similarly, benefits for older adults were found for naturalistic time-based tasks, without any age difference for lab time-based tasks. In these studies, deficits in older adults were only found for event-based tasks in the lab, with no age difference for naturalistic event-based tasks. The so-called Age PM Paradox could be due to the heterogeneity of PM assessments ( Azzopardi et al., 2017 Haines et al., 2020 Schnitzspahn et al., 2020). However, this so-called paradox might not be due to age itself as previously thought, but because of cognitive processes that are differentially affected by aging ( Haines et al., 2019). Conceptual implications A not so paradoxical paradoxĭuring the past three decades, researchers have investigated the Age PM Paradox, as older participants were found to perform worse than young participants in experimental conditions and perform better in ecological conditions ( Henry et al., 2004). As such, much research in the last three decades has focused on understanding why younger adults outperform older adults on some PM measures, but not in others.
#PROSPECTIVE MEMORY PROFESSIONAL#
Prospective memory is a crucial factor in maintaining autonomy in daily life (i.e., medical adherence, social, and professional meetings) for many clinical groups ( Henry, 2021) and during normal aging ( Blondelle et al., 2015, 2016). The choice of assessment methods has usually relied on the specific research question (event-based versus time-based) or feasibility and clinical relevance (e.g., patients’ fatigability).
#PROSPECTIVE MEMORY HOW TO#
To date literature on PM has brought many tools, theories and models, however there is no consensus on how to assess PM ( Ellis, 1996 Burgess and Shallice, 1997 McDaniel and Einstein, 2007). Most research in this field has distinguished between (1) event-based tasks, where actions involve the detection of an external cue (e.g., tell your partner you had a promotion when you see them) and (2) time-based tasks, where actions involve checking the time (e.g., go to the Liverpool stadium at 8:45 p.m. Prospective Memory (PM) is the ability to remember to realize intended actions in the future ( Einstein and McDaniel, 1990). Future research will also need to focus on cognitive factors, personality and online evaluation, to improve PM assessment and develop ad-hoc rehabilitation programs. Innovative PM paradigms that allow participants to generate their own intentions and that take task costs into consideration should be developed. In this perspective paper, we encourage researchers to develop more ecologically valid tools. Within performance-based PM tools there are also difficulties in measurement: 15–60 min experimental tasks and batteries have a good reliability but cannot usually fit in a standard clinical evaluation, while shorter PM measures have lower reliability and sensitivity. We argue that questionnaires may be relevant to obtain information regarding patients’ awareness of their PM difficulties but need to be used in conjunction with performance-based tools. Previous research showed a lack of convergent validity between performance-based PM and both self-report and informant-report measures. Contributing to this paradox is heterogeneity in and a lack of valid assessment methods.
Decades of research has focused on a so-called age PM paradox, where older adults outperformed younger adults on some PM tasks, but not others. Prospective Memory (PM), the ability to remember to realize intended actions in the future, is crucial for maintaining autonomy. 3School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.2INSPE de l’Académie d’Amiens, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.
1CRP-CPO, UR UPJV 72723, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France.Geoffrey Blondelle 1,2, Nicole Sugden 3 and Mathieu Hainselin 1*
0 kommentar(er)
