不同任务情境中的前瞻记忆是一致的吗？

对47名大学生被试依次进行自然情境中的人为任务、自然情境中的自然任务、实验室情境中的人为任务和实验室情境中的自然任务的测试。结果发现,相同任务情境中的不同性质的前瞻记忆具有一致性,特别是在自然情境中的一致性更为明显;相同任务性质但不同任务情境下的前瞻记忆没有一致性,实验室中的前瞻记忆与自然情境中的前瞻记忆不能相互预测。     

日常前瞻记忆的年龄差异

在年龄—前瞻记忆悖论现象中,老年人在完成日常前瞻记忆任务时,其表现优于年轻人的现象尤其引人注意。研究者一方面探讨了动机水平、责任心、生活状态以及外部帮助与提示等与主体有关的因素等对这一结果的影响;另一方面也研究了任务本身因素的影响,根据不同任务情境和任务性质的前瞻记忆年龄比较的结果,可以推断日常前瞻记忆年龄差异的来源在于任务的性质而非任务的情境。将来的研究可通过元分析、中介效应检验等手段进一步确定日常前瞻记忆年龄差异的机制。     

日常情境中前瞻记忆失败事件的归因

通过调查得到个体对日常情境中前瞻记忆失败的6种归因,在此基础上,编制12个日常生活中前瞻记忆失败的情境故事,让124名大学生被试进行归因,以确定事件重要性、人际关系和过错者身份对日常情境中前瞻记忆失败归因的影响。结果表明,被试对不重要事件的前瞻记忆失败归因为“主观无意”,重要事件归因为“主观故意”;在对事件后果和过错者人品判断时具有“对己严格”和“对人宽容”的归因特点;对包含亲子关系的前瞻记忆失败者进行责任较轻的归因与后果判断,在重要事件情境中,对包含朋友关系的前瞻记忆失败者进行责任较重的归因与后果判断。     

12～20岁个体前瞻记忆的发展与影响因素的研究

以334名12～20岁个体为被试,采用两因素混合设计,探讨这一年龄阶段个体前瞻记忆的发展及影响因素。结果发现,被试前瞻记忆水平随年龄增长而提高,且在14～16岁发展最快;提高基于时间的前瞻记忆负载,会使前瞻记忆成绩降低;前瞻记忆与当前任务的完成呈负相关。表明前瞻记忆是一种策略加工过程。     

分散注意条件下前瞻记忆的完成水平及其影响因素初探

本研究试图探讨在分散注意条件下前瞻记忆的完成水平及其影响因素。被试为98名大学生。在实验中,当前任务为数字听写,同时放映一段无声动画短片,将前瞻记忆任务(即看到某一靶线索画面时在相应数字上做记号)嵌入其中,动画片结束后要求被试完成若干与动画片内容有关的问题(事先通过指导语告知)。结果发现：1、前瞻记忆任务的成绩与被试的性别几乎无关,与材料熟悉程度也无显著相关;2、与被试对材料的喜好程度显著相关,提示即使在分散注意条件下,被试在完成前瞻记忆任务时也可能会根据偏好自动调整注意的分配。     

任务难度对前瞻记忆TAP效应影响的研究

前瞻记忆中的TAP效应是指,当进行中任务和前瞻任务加工类型一致时,前瞻记忆成绩要好于两者工类型不一致时.该研究采用双重任务范式,以大学生为被试,探讨了进行中任务难度对前瞻记忆TAP效应的影响,以揭示注意资源在TAP效应产生中的关键作用.结果表明:当进行中任务难度较低时,没有出现TAP效应,即进行中任务和前瞻任务的加工类型是否一致不会对前瞻记忆成绩产生显著影响;当进行中任务难度较高时,TAP效应部分出现.进一步说,当进行中任务加工类型为语义型时,语义型的前瞻任务成绩要显著好于结构型的前瞻任务成绩;而当进行中任务加工类型为结构型时,前瞻任务的加工类型没有对前瞻记忆成绩产生显著影响.     

进行中任务变化对轻度认知功能障碍者基于事件前瞻记忆的影响

本实验采用2被试组别(MCI组、正常老年组) × 3进行中任务变化(无变化、顺序变化、随机变化)被试间设计探究进行中任务变化对轻度认知功能障碍者基于事件前瞻记忆的影响。结果表明：(1)轻度认知功能障碍者的前瞻记忆成绩显著低于正常老年人的前瞻记忆成绩; (2)进行中任务变化对两组被试前瞻记忆和进行中任务的反应时影响存在显著差异。进行中任务变化越大, 轻度认知功能障碍者完成前瞻记忆和进行中任务的反应速度越慢; 而正常老年被试则不受影响。研究支持前瞻记忆策略加工的理论观点, 认为执行功能损伤可能是导致轻度认知功能障碍者前瞻记忆失败的主要原因。     

目标显著性和任务重要性对数学学业不良生和学优生前瞻记忆和前瞻干扰效应的影响

有问卷调查表明,个体的学业成绩特别是数学成绩与前瞻记忆表现有一定的相关,学业不良生报告更多的前瞻记忆失败。也有实验研究显示,学业不良生在很多情况下前瞻记忆表现劣于学优生。但是,影响学业不良生前瞻记忆表现的因素却并不是很明确。本研究从目标显著性和任务重要性这两个可以着手于改善前瞻记忆的主要因素入手,考察其对数学学业不良生和学优生事件性前瞻记忆和前瞻干扰效应的影响,以期为提高学业不良生的前瞻记忆表现提供实证依据。 采用2学业成就（学业不良生、学优生）×2前瞻记忆任务重要性（强调重要、不强调）×2目标显著性（显著、不显著）混合实验设计,目标显著性为被试内变量,其他两个因素为被试间变量,在双任务实验范式（前瞻记忆任务镶嵌于进行中任务）中,考察三个因素对前瞻记忆正确率和反应时的影响。此外,被试还需完成基线条件,在基线条件下被试只有进行中任务,没有前瞻记忆任务,通过实验条件和基线条件的正确率和反应时差异,考察前瞻记忆任务对进行中任务的干扰效应,推测前瞻记忆的加工机制。结果表明,学业不良生在所有前瞻记忆任务表现均劣于学优生;目标显著性与前瞻记忆任务重要性对前瞻记忆正确率有显著的交互作用,强调任务重要性使目标不显著条件下的前瞻记忆正确率提高,对显著条件的前瞻记忆正确率没有影响。强调任务重要性使所有实验条件的前瞻记忆反应时下降,目标显著使所有实验条件的前瞻记忆正确率提高。所有实验条件进行中任务正确率低于基线条件,反应时也慢于基线条件,表明执行前瞻记忆任务对进行中任务产生了干扰,学业不良生和学优生在本实验条件下对前瞻记忆任务均采用监控的加工方式。结果说明,学业不良生前瞻记忆成绩较差,可以通过设置显著的目标提高其前瞻记忆成绩,当目标显著时无需强调其重要性,若无法设置显著的目标,则通过强调任务重要性提高前瞻记忆表现。     

前瞻记忆的年老化效应:前瞻成分和回溯成分的调节作用

关注事件性前瞻记忆的年老化,采用基于双重任务的实验室研究范式,实验一控制线索与意向的关联性和线索的显著性操纵概念驱动加工和数据驱动加工过程,比较前瞻记忆的前瞻成分和回溯成分的年老化影响;实验二检验前瞻成分在前瞻记忆年老化中的作用。结果显示,线索与意向的关联性和线索与背景的区别性作为概念驱动加工和数据驱动加工的重要表现形式可以显著地促进老年人的前瞻记忆水平,前瞻记忆年老化主要存在于前瞻记忆的前瞻成分;前瞻成分较高的注意资源需求导致前瞻记忆的年龄差异主要受任务的认知需求水平所影响,当前瞻记忆是相对自动加工时,年龄差异小;当任务需要较多的控制加工时,年龄差异相对较大。本研究进一步揭示了导致前瞻记忆年龄差异的原因。     

背景任务刺激间的时距对前瞻干扰效应的影响

前瞻记忆是指形成和保持一个意向直到合适的情境或时间再执行的一种记忆任务。由于在执行背景任务的过程中保持和提取前瞻意向, 使成功执行前瞻记忆任务与加工背景任务之间存在着相互影响。保持前瞻记忆意向对背景任务的反应时和正确率有影响的现象称之为前瞻干扰效应。本研究通过操纵背景任务刺激间时距的两个实验, 考察了背景任务刺激间时距长度对时间性前瞻记忆和事件性前瞻记忆干扰效应量的对比关系的影响。结果发现随着背景任务刺激间时距缩短, 两类前瞻记忆干扰效应量的对比关系发生了变化, 且在背景任务刺激间时距长度不同的情况下执行时间性前瞻记忆任务时, 被试查看时钟的策略也有差异。提示了时间性前瞻记忆任务与事件性前瞻记忆任务认知加工机制上的不同。     

The age prospective memory paradox: young adults may not give their best outside of the lab

Previous research has identified the age prospective memory paradox of age-related declines in laboratory settings in contrast to age benefits in naturalistic settings. Various factors are assumed to account for this paradox, yet empirical evidence on this issue is scarce. In 2 experiments, the present study examined the effect of task setting in a laboratory task and the effect of motivation in a naturalistic task on prospective memory performance in young and older adults. For the laboratory task (Experiment 1, n = 40), we used a board game to simulate a week of daily activities and varied features of the prospective memory task (e.g., task regularity). For the naturalistic task (Experiment 2, n = 80), we instructed participants to try to remember to contact the experimenter repeatedly over the course of 1 week. Results from the laboratory prospective memory tasks indicated significant age-related decline for irregular tasks (p = .006) but not for regular and focal tasks. In addition, in the naturalistic task, the age benefit was eliminated when young adults were motivated by incentives (F < 1). In conclusion, the present results indicate that the variability of age differences in laboratory prospective memory tasks may be due in part to differences in the features of the prospective memory task. Furthermore, increases in motivation to perform the prospective task seem to help remedy prospective memory deficits in young adults in the naturalistic setting.     

The age prospective memory paradox within the same sample in time-based and event-based tasks

The present research investigated the age prospective memory (PM) paradox by testing the performance of the same participants on laboratory and naturalistic PM tasks. Younger, middle-aged, and older adults performed three tasks (time-based, event-based with focal cue, and event-based with nonfocal cue); first in the laboratory, then in the context of their everyday lives. Additionally, the social importance of PM tasks was manipulated in the laboratory. As expected, age-dependent declines on the laboratory tasks were reversed in the naturalistic tasks. Middle-aged adults performed as well as younger adults in the laboratory and as well as the elderly outside of the laboratory. When the social importance of laboratory tasks was stressed, the performance of younger adults fell. In addition, older adults showed higher self-reported commitment to the naturalistic tasks than both younger and middle-aged adults. Findings are discussed in the context of possible explanations for the age PM paradox.     

What factors influence prospective memory for elderly people in a naturalistic setting?1

Previous studies comparing prospective memory between the elderly and young adults have shown that elderly adults perform better in naturalistic settings, while young adults perform better in laboratory settings. The purpose of this study was to examine what factors influence prospective memory in naturalistic settings, and we specifically focused on age, the complexity of the prospective memory task, self‐evaluation and knowledge of memory function, retrospective memory, external memory aids, and internal memory strategies as potential influential factors. Eighty‐six healthy, elderly participants were enrolled (44 women and 42 men, mean age = 68.56 years, SD = 4.53). The results showed that the use of external memory aids increased in complex prospective memory tasks that depended on output monitoring, while other factors did not influence prospective memory performance. These results suggest that elderly adults can perform tasks adequately by using external memory aids that compensate for age‐related memory declines in naturalistic settings.     

Prospective memory and ageing paradox with event-based tasks: A study of young,young-old,and old-old participants

Research on ageing and prospective memory—remembering to do something in the future—has resulted in paradoxical findings, whereby older adults are often impaired in the laboratory but perform significantly better than younger adults in naturalistic settings. Nevertheless, there are very few studies that have examined prospective memory both in and outside the laboratory using the same sample of young and old participants. Moreover, most naturalistic studies have used time-based tasks, and it is unclear whether the prospective memory and ageing paradox extends to event-based tasks. In this study, 72 young (18–30 years), 79 young-old (61–70 years), and 72 old-old (71–80 years) participants completed several event-based tasks in and outside the laboratory. Results showed that the ageing paradox does exist for event-based tasks but manifests itself differently from that in time-based tasks. Thus, younger adults outperformed old-old participants in two laboratory event-based tasks, but there were no age effects for a naturalistic task completed at home (remembering to write the date and time in the upper left corner of a questionnaire). The young and old-old also did not differ in remembering to retrieve a wristwatch from a pocket at the end of the laboratory session. This indicates that the paradox may be due to differences in ongoing task demands in the lab and everyday life, rather than the location per se. The findings call for a concentrated effort towards a theory of cognitive ageing that identifies the variables that do, or do not, account for this paradox.     

Naturalistic memory in learning-disabled and skilled readers

Three experiments compared learning-disabled and skilled readers' performance on naturalistic memory measures, as well as investigated the relationship between memory performance on everyday and laboratory tasks. In Experiment 1, the laboratory task (sentence span task) and everyday memory measures were correlated moderately for both ability groups. Compared to skilled readers, disabled readers performed poorly on the sentence span task, and were less likely than skilled readers to remember information related to common objects and consequential events. Disabled readers were also less likely to rely on external prompts to help them recall everyday information. Experiment 2 extended the previous findings to older subjects and found that the majority of significant correlations between the laboratory (word span task) and everyday memory tasks were isolated to disabled readers. When compared to chronological-age-matched subjects, disabled readers were inferior in recency performance on the laboratory (word span) and natural serial recall (e.g., recall of U.S. presidents) tasks. Experiment 3 showed that under conditions that facilitate item accessibility, ability group differences in recall were comparable. Taken together, the findings indicate that disabled readers' memory deficits are pervasive across naturalistic and laboratory measures at the younger age, but these deficits diminish for older students. Further, the deficits that occur at the older age are due to problems in accessing knowledge.     

Do preschoolers remember what to do? Incentive and external cues in prospective memory

Prospective memory, which involves remembering to perform an action at a future time, is used frequently in daily life. Few researchers, however, have studied this type of memory with children. The present study examined and compared 3- and 5-year-olds' performance on naturalistic and computer-based prospective memory tasks. The effects of incentive and external cues on memory performance were examined along with the relationship between prospective and retrospective memory. The results indicated that 5-year-olds demonstrated greater prospective memory performance than did 3-year-olds and neither incentive nor external cues consistently improved performance. Relationships between performance on the naturalistic and computer tasks varied with age. In contrast to the adult literature, younger children's prospective and retrospective memory performances were related. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Exploring students' prospective memory inside and outside the lab

This study compared activity-based intentions with event- and time-based intentions. Forty-five participants completed a laboratory session that tested activity-, event-, and time-based prospective memory. Participants were then asked to keep a record of their planned academic and work-related activities for 1 week. Results revealed a main effect of context such that participants were better at performing intentions in the naturalistic setting than in the laboratory. A strong trend of intention type showed that event-based tasks were more likely to be performed than activity- and time-based tasks. An interaction of context and intention type suggested that participants were significantly better at performing time-based tasks in the naturalistic setting than in the lab. Nearly half of the participants reported using simple memory aids such as alarm clocks, parent or friend reminders, or other external cues. Strikingly, very few reported using electronic devices to aid their memory for future intentions.     

Dismantling the “age–prospective memory paradox”: The classic laboratory paradigm simulated in a naturalistic setting

Previous research has identified “the age–prospective memory paradox”—that adult ageing results in reliably poorer performance on laboratory-based tasks of prospective memory (PM), but improved performance on such tasks carried out in real-life settings. We hypothesized that even in their everyday environment, older adults might be worse at PM tasks that are triggered during an experimenter-generated ongoing activity. The present study used a task that captured the key features of the classic laboratory paradigm, but which was completed in a setting that met key criteria to be considered naturalistic. In their everyday setting, participants' PM was assessed, with the cue to remember occurring either (a) during their day-to-day activities, or (b) during an experimenter-generated ongoing task. The results confirmed previous naturalistic findings, in showing that older adults (n = 28) exhibited better PM than their younger counterparts (n = 65) when prompted during their everyday activities. However, older adults were also then subsequently less likely to show effective PM during experimenter-generated ongoing activity. Reproducing the paradox within a single dataset, these data indicate that older adults can effectively act on intentions during everyday activities, but have difficulty in prospective remembering during experimenter-generated ongoing tasks.     

Relationship of cognitive strategy use to prospective memory performance in a diverse sample of nondemented older adults with varying degrees of cognitive complaints and impairment

Although older adults typically have better performance on prospective memory (PM) tasks carried out in naturalistic settings, a paucity of research directly assesses older adults’ use of compensatory strategies on such tasks. The current study investigates external memory strategy use during performance of a clinical PM test that features both short-term (in laboratory) and long-term (out of laboratory) subtasks (i.e., the Royal Prince Alfred Prospective Memory Test – RPA-ProMem. Nondemented, community-dwelling older adults (n = 214; mean age = 80.5; 68.2% female; 39.7% non-white) with mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive decline, and healthy controls completed the RPA-ProMem while external strategy use was permitted and recorded. Overall, participants utilized external strategies 41% of the time on the RPA-ProMem. Increased utilization of external memory strategies was significantly associated with better PM performance. Additionally, better performance on executive functioning tasks was associated with increased use of external memory strategies. Results are discussed in relation to how memory strategy use can be enhanced to improve everyday memory ability in older adults at risk for dementia.     

Personality predicts prospective memory task performance: an adult lifespan study

Do interindividual differences in prospective memory task performance reflect individual differences in personality and lifestyle? Do the cognitive abilities known to change with age retain their power to predict episodic prospective memory task performance after controlling for personality and lifestyle variables, and do personality and lifestyle variables offer predictive power apart from that provided by cognitive ability measures? To answer these questions, we conducted a study with community‐living healthy individuals (n= 141) between 18 and 81 years of age. They completed three different episodic prospective memory tasks – two laboratory tasks and one field task – as well as various measures of personality, lifestyle, and cognitive ability. The results indicated that personality and lifestyle reliably predicted who will succeed and who will fail on all three episodic prospective memory tasks. Conscientiousness predicted performance on two of the prospective memory tasks; socially prescribed perfectionism and neuroticism each predicted performance on one of the prospective memory tasks. Cognitive ability predicted performance on one of the laboratory prospective memory tasks but not on the other two prospective memory tasks. After we controlled for individual differences in personality and lifestyle variables, cognitive ability was no longer able to predict performance on the laboratory prospective memory task. By contrast, controlling for cognitive ability had no influence on the predictive power of the personality and lifestyle variables.