Relationship Between Event-Based Memory Task And Prospective Memory

Clinical Psychology and Gerontology Activities

Clinical Psychology and Gerontology Activities

Literature Review

Discuss about the Clinical Psychology and Gerontology Activities.

Definition of terms: Memory is the practice in which information or knowledge is recorded, stored and recalled. For this processing of information or knowledge in memory, hippocampus, amygdala, striatum, and mammillary bodies of the brain areas are involved. Prospective memory is defined as the type of memory which is going to be delayed to take action in the future and performed on the advent of the most suitable condition for this particular task. Types of prospective memory: event based, time-based and activity based. In the event based prospective memory, exterior signal activates the related memory of the previously created plan. In time based prospective memory, individual aims to execute a task at a definite time or after lapsed time. In activity based prospective task, individual’s objective is to perform the task after completion of certain additional task.  Out of these three types of prospective memory, the activity-based memory is most important memory in our daily activities and in reality, this activity-based memory is least studied (Brewer et al, 2011).

Literature review: Kvavilashvili and Ellis (1996), demonstrated the relationship between the activity based and event based memory tasks. They illustrated that, completion of the particular task itself might function as an environmental retrieval signal (event based task) for the activity based task. On the contrary, they made a point that, this completion of one task is less prominent event based signal a compared to the actual environmental interruption. In the past, time and event based prospective memory task has been compared and the relation has been established. In a few of the studies, it has been observed that, event based performance is better than the time based performance for the retrieval process in memory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1990; Sellen et al. 1997; Kidder, Park, Hertzog, & Morrell, 1997). In event based tasks, some compulsory intermission is placed in the ongoing activities; however these intermissions are not preplanned. Length of these intermissions doesn’t affect the outcome, however reminders for these intermissions, impressively improve the outcome of the task. The outcome of the ongoing activity, gives the person to plan the future activity. Earlier few studies had demonstrated different parameters in the prospective memory studies, like essential processes, significant variables and psychological phenomenon (Einstein & McDaniel, 1990; Kliegel,Mackinlay, & Jager, 2008; Smith, 2003). In a few studies, spontaneous retrieval of cues (event based task) in the prospective memory task was demonstrated (Einstein & McDaniel, 2005; Guynn, 2003; Marsh, Hancock & Hicks, 2002; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000).

Theory

Theory: Two theories like preparatory attentional & memory processes (PAM) theory and the multiprocess model were established to understand the mechanisms and methods of prospective memory (Smith, 2003; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). PAM theory is specifically based on the memory of targeted or desired task, whereas multiprocess model theory is based on the multiple processes. PAM theory consists of two components viz. first is monitoring process which is related to intention maintenance and second is the utilization of retrospective memory process which distinguish between desired and undesired purpose. In multiporcess theory, prospective memory doesn’t solely depends on active monitoring, but memory retrieval occurs spontaneously based on the prominent feature of cue, relationship between cue and target.                

Research question and justification of the question: Question put forward for the research is: What would be the relationship between perspective memory and event based memory task? Prospective memory is considered as the memory of the upcoming action, also plays important part in routine actions. These activities as a result of the prospective memory, can be simple activities or complex activities. As mentioned earlier, in event based tasks, environmental signal is used as a prompt of the intended activity. For performing future actions in the form of prospective memory, some external signal is required. This external or environmental indication for the implementation of the prospective memory can be assessed by the event based memory tasks. In this scenario, it is necessary to evaluate the relationship between the prospective memory and event based memory task.

Hypothesis: As mentioned in the literature review, event based performance is better than the time based performance for the retrieval process in memory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1990; Sellen et al. 1997; Kidder, Park, Hertzog, & Morrell, 1997).  Hence, it has been hypothesized that there can be a parallel relationship between the prospective memory and the event based memory task.

Participants:

78 undergraduate psychology students from ACAP (53 female) volunteered to participate in the research experiment (M = 30.39, SD = 9.44 years). All participants were anonymous and consent was implied via submission of the data response sheet.

Materials:

An Einstein-McDaniel paradigm exercise (Marsh et al., 2002) was administered in tasks 1 and 3 of the experiment, whereby 60 words were presented to participants at a rate of one word every two seconds. Visual stimuli were presented either via a projector screen in the laboratory classroom, or computer monitor. A word memory distractor task was presented between tasks 1 and 3. Participants used paper-based reporting sheets to record their responses to each of the three tasks. For the third task, participants were required to record either the pleasantness of a particular word on a scale of 1 (very unpleasant) to 5 (very pleasant), or record the number of syllables. Data was analysed using SPSS v.21 (2012). A t-test was employed for analysis.

Research Question and Justification of the Question

Procedure:

Students were invited to participate in a prospective memory study comprising 3 tasks. In the first task 60 trials were presented as a continuing task with a single word offered on each trial. The 60 words were presented on-screen to participants. Each word was presented for two seconds. Participants were instructed to make the same single judgment on all trials and manually record a yes-no answer of whether the word represented something living or not on a response sheet. Four prospective cues were embedded in the continuing task at trials 8, 18, 37 and 55. Specifically, participants were instructed that whenever an animal word appeared on the projector screen they should write an asterisk (*) next to the yes or no response to signify they had remembered the intention.

The second task required participants to commit to memory a series of emotive words and served as a distractor task within the broader experiment. Participants were given two minutes to remember as many words as possible. In the third task participants were instructed to make one of two judgments on 60 trials, which were presented at the same frequency as the first trial. Participants were requested to look at each word and manually record either the number of syllables or their perceived pleasantness of the word on a response sheet.

Prior to the word being presented on-screen, participants received a prompt on the screen to direct the type of judgment to be made: “number of syllables?” or “pleasantness”. Four prospective cues were again embedded in the ongoing task at trials 12, 31, 45 and 58. Participants were again instructed that whenever an animal word appeared on the projector screen they should write an asterisk (*) next to their yes or no response to signify they had remembered the intention.

Task performance was measured by missed responses indicated by a blank cell on the participant’s response sheet (i.e., 3 missed responses equated to 3 incorrect answers). Prospective memory was measured by the number of missed prospective memory responses documented on the participant’s response sheet (i.e., no asterisk next to one animal word equated to one missed PM response).

Results:

All statistical procedures were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 21.0. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure that collected data did not violate assumptions and assumptions of normality. No significant outliers were present in the data set. Therefore, the entire data set was deemed to meet the assumptions of normality and an alpha level of .05 was adopted for all analyses.

Hypothesis

To determine the relationship between the number of judgments made and task performance, a series of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated on all experimental variables. Results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the number of judgments made and the number of ongoing task errors recorded, r = .48, p < .05. Similarly, results also revealed a significant relationship between the number of judgments made and the number of prospective memory errors recorded, r = .72, p < .05.

Discursion:

Task 2 : Second task was related to the time based prospective memory task because in this task participants has to remember certain type of words for a specific time period. In this task, participants had to make two judgments i.e. emotive words and number of words. Since these two judgments were closely related in the same task, it was easy for the participants make appropriate judgments.

Ongoing task on task 1 and task 3: In ongoing task on task 1 and task 3, participants had to make two different types of judgments. They should give attention to embedded cue and at the same time they should remember the words with animal names also. As these two judgments were different from each other, it was difficult for the participants make proper judgment. In the interval of two seconds, these participants had to give attention to embedded word and at the same word with the animal name. In ongoing task, task 3 is more complex with additional identification of syllables and pleasantness. In task 3, participants had to switch their judgement very frequently and moreover these judgements were unrelated. Hence it was difficult for the participants to make proper judgement in the task 3 and there were more chances of error. Requirement of processing time and reaction time were more for ongoing task 3. In ongoing task more resources and time were utilised for ongoing task, hence less time had been given to the prospective memory task. Processing requirements of the ongoing task was more and this affected the event based performance.

Prospective memory task on task 1 and 3: Prospective memory task 1, was the simplest of all the tasks evaluated in this study. In this task participants had to make one judgement i.e. living or non-living, corresponding to each word. So, in this task participants made very good judgements. Participants had ample amount of time to complete this task and resources required for this task were also very less. In task 3, participants had to make two judgements i.e. syllables or their perceived pleasantness. These two judgements are totally different from each other. In the time interval of two seconds, participants had to go through two prompts on the screen and had to make three different judgments like, number of syllables, pleasantness and unpleasantness.  

Method

Comparison of task 1 and task 3: As discussed in the previous sections, task 1 is simple and judgement is easy in this task as compared to the more complex task 3. In task 1, participants had to make a decision on only living or non-living, while in task 3, participants had to make three types of judgements like number of syllables, pleasantness and unpleasantness. In task 3, two types of prompts were kept and these prompts distract the participants from their intention and participants spent extra time and sources to make judgments in this task. Hence, participants exhibited better results in the task 1 as compared to the task 3.     

In the previous studies, it had been established that, in case of more prominent cue in the event based task, there is less significance of the ongoing task to make some conclusion. Thus, processing requirement of the event based task and the ongoing affects each other, both in quantitative and qualitative terms (Brewer et al, 2011).

From the results it is evident that there is a more positive correlation between the prospective memory task i.e. event based memory task and the memory retrieval which is measured in terms of judgement in this study. As compared to the prospective memory task, there is less correlation between the ongoing task and the judgement. These results are in line with our hypothesis of parallel relationship between the prospective memory and the event based memory task.

References:

Brewer, G.A., Marsh, R.L., Clark-Foos, A., Meeks, J.T., Cook, G.I., & Hicks, J. L. (2011). A Comparison of Activity-Based to Event-Based Prospective Memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 632–640. 

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 716–726.

Einstein, G.O., & McDaniel, M.A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.

Guynn, M.J. (2003). A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective memory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 245–256.

Kidder, D. P., Park, D. C., Hertzog, C., & Morrell, R.W. (1997). Prospective memory and aging: The effects of working memory and prospective memory task load. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 4, 93–112.

Kliegel, M., Mackinlay, R., & Jager, T. (2008). Complex prospective memory: Development across the lifespan and the role of task interruption. Developmental Psychology , 44, 612–617.

Kvavilashvili, L., & Ellis, J. (1996). Varieties of intentions: Some distinctions and classifications. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 23– 52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marsh, R.J., Hancock, T.W., & Hicks, J.L. (2002). The demands of an ongoing activity influence the success of event-based prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 604–610.

McDaniel, M.A, & Einstein, G.O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–S144.

Sellen, A. J., Louie, G., Harris, J. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (1997). What brings intentions to mind? An in situ study of prospective memory. Memory, 4, 483-507.

Smith, R.E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 347–361.