Focal and nonfocal prospective memory performance in very mild dementia: a signature decline.

OBJECTIVE: In a recent study, performance on a certain kind of prospective memory task (PM), labeled focal PM, was sensitive to the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD; Duchek, Balota, & Cortese, 2006). This study sought to replicate and extend these findings by investigating both focal and nonfocal PM, as well as possible influences of alleles of the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene. METHOD: Thirty-five healthy older adults and 33 adults in the very earliest stages of AD, as determined by the clinical dementia rating scale, completed both focal and nonfocal PM tasks. Performance on these tasks has been linked to qualitatively different cognitive processes (Scullin, McDaniel, Shelton, & Lee, 2010), thereby providing leverage to illuminate the specific processes that underlie PM failures in very early AD. Approximately half of the adults in each group were ApoE e4 carriers and half were noncarriers. We also obtained participants' scores on a battery of standard psychometric tests. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between the type of PM task and dementia status, p < .05, ηp² = .12, demonstrating that the AD-related decline was more robust for focal than for nonfocal PM. Further, focal PM performance significantly discriminated between the very earliest stages of AD and normal aging, explaining variance unique to that explained by typical psychometric indices. ApoE status, however, was not associated with PM performance. CONCLUSION: The pronounced deficit observed in the focal PM task suggests that spontaneous retrieval processes may be compromised in very early AD.

Discrepancy processes in prospective memory retrieval.

Discrepancy processes may be helpful in noticing prospective memory targets (McDaniel, Guynn, Einstein, & Breneiser, 2004). We manipulated the discrepancy of prospective memory targets from the processing coherence established by the ongoing task by preexposing nontarget items in the ongoing task either five times (high discrepancy) or two times (low discrepancy). Prospective memory performance was significantly better in the high-discrepancy group than in the low-discrepancy group. These results support a discrepancy view of prospective remembering.

Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval.

Theoretically, prospective memory retrieval can be accomplished either by controlled monitoring of the environment for a target event or by a more reflexive process that spontaneously responds to the presence of a target event. These views were evaluated in Experiments 1-4 by examining whether performing a prospective memory task produced costs on the speed of performing the ongoing task. In Experiment 5, the authors directly tested for the existence of spontaneous retrieval. The results supported the multiprocess theory (M. A. McDaniel & G. O. Einstein, 2000) predictions that (a) spontaneous retrieval can occur and can support good prospective memory and (b) depending on task demands and individual differences, people rely to different degrees on monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval for prospective remembering.

Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval.

Several theories of event-based prospective memory were evaluated in 3 experiments. The results depended on the association between the target event and the intended action. For associated target-action pairs (a) preexposure of nontargets did not reduce prospective memory, (b) divided attention did not reduce prospective memory, (c) prospective memory was better than when the target event and intended action were not associated, and (d) prospective memory was characterized by retrieval of the precise intended action. These results converge on the view that retrieval is mediated by a reflexive-associative process. In contrast, for unassociated pairs (a) preexposure of nontargets reduced prospective memory, and (b) divided attention reduced prospective memory. These results implicate cue-focused retrieval processes and are most consistent with a discrepancy-plus-search model. The entire pattern implicates both cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes and more generally supports a multiprocess framework of prospective memory (M. A. McDaniel & G. O. Einstein, 2000).