Abstract
Background: The ability to remember future intentions is compromised in both healthy and cognitively impaired older adults. Assistive technology provides older adults with promising solutions to cope with this age-related problem. However, the effectiveness and efficiency of such systems as memory aids is seldom evaluated in controlled, randomized trials. Objectives: We evaluated the effectiveness of a memory aid system, the InBad (engl. InBath), for bathroom-related daily care. Conceptually, the InBad learns user behavior patterns and detects deviations from the learned pattern in order to notify the user of a forgotten task. Methods: We simulated a challenging morning routine consisting of 22 bathroom activities with a sample of 60 healthy older adults. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) ‘no memory support’, i.e. participants received no support at all, (2) ‘list support’, i.e. participants could retrieve a list of all activities, and (3) ‘system support’, i.e. participants received prompts for specific activities that had not yet been executed. Results: Both support groups executed significantly more activities compared to the ‘no support’ group. In addition, system support resulted in significantly better performance compared to list support with no significant differences between the two groups in overall task duration. Conclusion: The assistive support system was the most effective and efficient memory aid. The results suggest that assistive technology has the potential to enable older adults to remain safe and independent in their own home.
Journal Section:
Editor's choice
References
1.
U.S. Census Bureau: National population projections, 2000. www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natproj.html (accessed Sept 8, 2011).
2.
Rogers W, Stronge A, Fisk A: Technology and aging. Rev Hum Factors Ergonom 2005;1:130–171.
3.
Craik FIM: Age-related changes in human memory; in Park DC, Schwarz N (eds): Cognitive Aging: A Primer. New York, Psychology Press, 2000, vol 5, pp 75–92.
4.
Einstein GO, McDaniel MA: Normal aging and prospective memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1990;16:717–726.
[PubMed]
5.
Kidder D, Park D, Hertzog C, Morrell R: Prospective memory and aging: the effects of working memory and prospective memory task load. Aging Neuropsychol C 1997;4:93–112.
6.
Marsh RL, Hicks JL: Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1998;24:336–349.
[PubMed]
7.
Costa A, Perri R, Serra L, Barban F, Gatto I, Zabberoni S, Caltagirone C, Carlesimo GA: Prospective memory functioning in mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology 2010;24:327–335.
[PubMed]
8.
Huppert F, Johnson T, Nickson J: High prevalence of prospective memory impairment in the elderly and in early stage dementia: findings from a population based study. Appl Cogn Psychol 2000;14:S63–S81.
9.
Maylor EA: Prospective memory in normal ageing and dementia. Neurocase 1995;1:285–289.
10.
Henry JD, MacLeod MS, Phillips LH, Crawford JR: A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychol Aging 2004;19:27–39.
[PubMed]
11.
Smith RE, Bayen UJ: The source of adult age differences in event-based prospective memory: a multinomial modeling approach. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2006;32:623–635.
[PubMed]
12.
Uttl B: Transparent meta-analysis of prospective memory and aging. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e1568.
[PubMed]
13.
Zimmermann TD, Meier B: The effect of implementation intentions on prospective memory performance across the lifespan. Appl Cogn Psychol 2010;24:645–658.
14.
Park D, Morrell R, Frieske D, Kincaid D: Medication adherence behaviors in older adults: effects of external cognitive supports. Psychol Aging 1992;7:252–256.
[PubMed]
15.
Magnusson L, Hanson E, Borg M: A literature review study of information and communication technology as a support for frail older people living at home and their family carers. Technol Disabil 2004;16:223–235.
16.
Pollack M: Intelligent technology for an aging population: the use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment. AI Mag 2005;26:9.
17.
Rogers W, Fisk A: Toward a psychological science of advanced technology design for older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol 2010;65B:645–653.
18.
Caprani N, Greaney J, Porter N: A review of memory aid devices for an ageing population. PsychNology Journal 2006;4:205–243.
19.
Mynatt E, Rogers W: Developing technology to support the functional independence of older adults. Ageing Int 2001;27:24–41.
20.
Gentry T: Smart homes for people with neurological disability: state of the art. Neurorehabilitation 2009;25:209–217.
[PubMed]
21.
Mihailidis A, Boger J, Craig T, Hoey J: The COACH prompting system to assist older adults with dementia through handwashing: an efficacy study. BMC Geriatr 2008;8:28.
[PubMed]
22.
Pollack M, Brown L, Colbry D, McCarthy C, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Tsamardinos I: Autominder: an intelligent cognitive orthotic system for people with memory impairment. Rob Auton Syst 2003;44:273–282.
23.
Martin S, Kelly G, Kernohan W, McCreight B, Nugent C: Smart home technologies for health and social care support. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;4:1–10.
24.
Dogangün A, Haverkamp T, Munstermann M, Stockmanns G, Naroska E: ‘InBath’ – assistive badumgebung; in Wandke H, Kain S, Struve D (eds): Mensch und Computer 2009: Grenzenlos frei!? München, Oldenbourg Verlag, 2009, pp 423–426.
25.
Fraunhofer-inHaus-Zentrum: Inbath: Assisting bathroom environment, 2009. http://www.inhauszentrum.de/_uploads/media/1732_inBath_flyer_english.pdf (accessed Sept. 8, 2011).
26.
Dahlback N, Jonsson A, Ahrenberg L: Wizard of Oz studies – why and how. Knowledge-Based Syst 1993;6:258–266.
27.
Dobbs AR, Reeves B: Prospective memory: more than memory; in Brandimonte M, Einstein GO, McDaniel MA (eds): Prospective Memory: Theory and Applications. Mahwah, L. Erlbaum, 1996, pp 199–225.
28.
Ellis J: Prospective memory or the realization of delayed intentions: a conceptual framework for research; in Brandimonte M, Einstein GO, McDaniel MA (eds): Prospective Memory: Theory and Applications. Mahwah, L. Erlbaum, 1996, pp 1–51.
29.
Einstein GO, McDaniel MA: Retrieval processes in prospective memory: theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings; in Brandimonte M, Einstein GO, McDaniel MA (eds): Prospective Memory: Theory and Applications. Mahwah, L. Erlbaum, 1996, pp 115–142.
30.
Smith RE, Bayen UJ: A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. J Exp Psychol-Learn Mem Cogn 2004;30:756–777.
[PubMed]
31.
Nichols TA, Rogers WA, Fisk AD: Design for Aging; Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Hoboken, Wiley Online Library, 2006, pp 1418–1445.
32.
Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J: Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 2006;21:333.
[PubMed]
33.
Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C, Bruder C: Technikaffinität erfassen: Der Fragebogen TA-EG; in Lichtenstein A, Stößel C, Clemens C (eds): Der Mensch als Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme: 8 Berliner Werkstatt Mensch-Maschine-Systeme. Düsseldorf, VDI Verlag, 2009, pp 194–199.
34.
Kline P: The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London, Routledge, 2000.
35.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A: G* POWER 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Red Methods 2007;39:175–191.
[PubMed]
36.
Grundgeiger T, Sanderson PM, MacDougall HG, Venkatesh B: Interruption management in the intensive care unit: predicting resumption times and assessing distributed support. J Exp Psychol Appl2010;16:317–334.
[PubMed]
37.
Guynn MJ, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO: Prospective memory: when reminders fail. Mem Cogn 1998;26:287–298.
[PubMed]
38.
McDaniel MA, Einstein GO, Graham T, Rall E: Delaying execution of intentions: overcoming the costs of interruptions. Appl Cogn Psychol 2004;18:533–547.
39.
Bayen U, Murnane K: Aging and the use of perceptual and temporal information in source memory tasks. Psychol Aging 1996;11:293–303.
[PubMed]
40.
Melenhorst AS, Rogers WA, Bouwhuis DG: Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol Aging 2006;21:190–195.
[PubMed]
41.
Willis SL: Everyday cognitive competence in elderly persons: conceptual issues and empirical findings. Gerontologist 1996;36:595.
[PubMed]
42.
Dismukes RK: Prospective memory in aviation and everyday settings; in Kliegel M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO (eds): Prospective memory: Cognitive, Neuroscience, Developmental, and Applied Perspectives. New York, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008, pp 411–431.
43.
Meacham JA, Leiman B: Remembering to perform future actions; in Neisser U (ed): Memory Observed. San Francisco, Freeman, 1982, pp 327–336.
44.
Kliegel M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO: Plan formation, retention, and execution in prospective memory: a new approach and age-related effects. Mem Cogn 2000;28:1041–1049.
[PubMed]
45.
Lindenberger U, Lovden M, Schellenbach M, Li S, Kruger A: Psychological principles of successful aging technologies: a mini-review. Gerontology 2008;54:59.
[PubMed]
46.
Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y: The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:505–516.
[PubMed]
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2012
You do not currently have access to this content.
