Cargando…

Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?

BACKGROUND: Prospective memory (ProM) is the ability to become aware of a previously-formed plan at the right time and place. For over twenty years, researchers have been debating whether prospective memory declines with aging or whether it is spared by aging and, most recently, whether aging spares...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Uttl, Bob
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033399/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21304905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016618
_version_ 1782197575897579520
author Uttl, Bob
author_facet Uttl, Bob
author_sort Uttl, Bob
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prospective memory (ProM) is the ability to become aware of a previously-formed plan at the right time and place. For over twenty years, researchers have been debating whether prospective memory declines with aging or whether it is spared by aging and, most recently, whether aging spares prospective memory with focal vs. non-focal cues. Two recent meta-analyses examining these claims did not include all relevant studies and ignored prevalent ceiling effects, age confounds, and did not distinguish between prospective memory subdomains (e.g., ProM proper, vigilance, habitual ProM) (see Uttl, 2008, PLoS ONE). The present meta-analysis focuses on the following questions: Does prospective memory decline with aging? Does prospective memory with focal vs. non-focal cues decline with aging? Does the size of age-related declines with focal vs. non-focal cues vary across ProM subdomains? And are age-related declines in ProM smaller than age-related declines in retrospective memory? METHODS AND FINDINGS: A meta-analysis of event-cued ProM using data visualization and modeling, robust count methods, and conventional meta-analysis techniques revealed that first, the size of age-related declines in ProM with both focal and non-focal cues are large. Second, age-related declines in ProM with focal cues are larger in ProM proper and smaller in vigilance. Third, age-related declines in ProM proper with focal cues are as large as age-related declines in recall measures of retrospective memory. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with Craik's (1983) proposal that age-related declines on ProM tasks are generally large, support the distinction between ProM proper vs. vigilance, and directly contradict widespread claims that ProM, with or without focal cues, is spared by aging.
format Text
id pubmed-3033399
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30333992011-02-08 Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues? Uttl, Bob PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Prospective memory (ProM) is the ability to become aware of a previously-formed plan at the right time and place. For over twenty years, researchers have been debating whether prospective memory declines with aging or whether it is spared by aging and, most recently, whether aging spares prospective memory with focal vs. non-focal cues. Two recent meta-analyses examining these claims did not include all relevant studies and ignored prevalent ceiling effects, age confounds, and did not distinguish between prospective memory subdomains (e.g., ProM proper, vigilance, habitual ProM) (see Uttl, 2008, PLoS ONE). The present meta-analysis focuses on the following questions: Does prospective memory decline with aging? Does prospective memory with focal vs. non-focal cues decline with aging? Does the size of age-related declines with focal vs. non-focal cues vary across ProM subdomains? And are age-related declines in ProM smaller than age-related declines in retrospective memory? METHODS AND FINDINGS: A meta-analysis of event-cued ProM using data visualization and modeling, robust count methods, and conventional meta-analysis techniques revealed that first, the size of age-related declines in ProM with both focal and non-focal cues are large. Second, age-related declines in ProM with focal cues are larger in ProM proper and smaller in vigilance. Third, age-related declines in ProM proper with focal cues are as large as age-related declines in recall measures of retrospective memory. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with Craik's (1983) proposal that age-related declines on ProM tasks are generally large, support the distinction between ProM proper vs. vigilance, and directly contradict widespread claims that ProM, with or without focal cues, is spared by aging. Public Library of Science 2011-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3033399/ /pubmed/21304905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016618 Text en Bob Uttl. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Uttl, Bob
Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?
title Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?
title_full Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?
title_fullStr Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?
title_full_unstemmed Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?
title_short Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?
title_sort transparent meta-analysis: does aging spare prospective memory with focal vs. non-focal cues?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033399/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21304905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016618
work_keys_str_mv AT uttlbob transparentmetaanalysisdoesagingspareprospectivememorywithfocalvsnonfocalcues