Background: Most laboratory-based studies on prospective memory show a decline with increasing age. Theoretical explanations for age differences focus on the allocation of attentional resources to support prospective remembering. The recruitment of prospective memory target monitoring seems to be influenced by perceived task importance. Objective: In the present study, we investigated the influence of task importance on the magnitude of age differences in event-based prospective memory. Methods: Healthy younger (n = 25) and older (n = 25) adults were instructed a priori to prioritize either the ongoing or the prospective memory task before performing an event-based prospective memory task. Results: We found an interaction between age and task importance: instructed higher importance of the ongoing task compared to the prospective memory task component produced significant age-related declines in prospective remembering. By contrast, if older adults treated the prospective memory task component as more important than the ongoing task, they achieved equivalent levels of prospective memory performance as their younger counterparts, but did so at a cost to ongoing task performance. Conclusions: The present data indicate that task importance is one of the factors determining the presence or absence of age deficits in prospective remembering. Findings are discussed in the context of limited processing resources in old age and theoretical frameworks of event-based prospective memory.

1.
Kliegel M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO (eds): Prospective Memory: Cognitive, Neuroscience, Developmental, and Applied Perspectives. New York, Erlbaum, 2008.
2.
Einstein GO, McDaniel MA: Normal aging and prospective memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1990;16:717-726.
3.
Craik FIM: A functional account for age differences in memory; in Klix F, Hagendorf H (eds): Human Memory and Cognitive Capabilities: Mechanisms and Perfomances. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1986, pp 409-422.
4.
Henry JD, MacLeod MS, Phillips LH, Crawford JR: A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychol Aging 2004;19:27-39.
5.
Kliegel M, Phillips LH, Jäger T: Adult age differences in event-based prospective memory: a meta-analysis on the role of focal versus nonfocal cues. Psychol Aging 2008;23:203-208.
6.
Salthouse TA, Berish DE, Siedlecki KL: Construct validity and age sensitivity of prospective memory. Mem Cognit 2004;32:1133-1148.
7.
Schnitzspahn KM, Stahl C, Zeintl M, Kaller CP, Kliegel M: The role of shifting updating and inhibition in prospective memory performance in young and older adults. Dev Psychol 2013;49:1544-1553.
8.
Gonneaud J, Kalpouzos G, Bon L, Viader F, Eustache F, Desgranges B: Distinct and shared cognitive functions mediate event- and time-based prospective memory impairment in normal ageing. Memory 2011;19:360-377.
9.
Martin M, Kliegel M, McDaniel MA: The involvement of executive functions in prospective memory performance of adults. Int J Psychol 2003;38:195-206.
10.
Cherry KE, LeCompte DC: Age and individual differences influence prospective memory. Psychol Aging 1999;14:60-76.
11.
Jäger T, Kliegel M: Time-based and event-based prospective memory across adulthood: underlying mechanisms and differential costs on the ongoing task. J Gen Psychol 2008;135:4-22.
12.
Reese CM, Cherry KE: The effects of age, ability, and memory monitoring on prospective memory task performance. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2002;9:98-113.
13.
McDaniel MA, Einstein GO: The neuropsychology of prospective memory in normal aging: a componential approach. Neuropsychologia 2011;49:2147-2155.
14.
McDaniel MA, Einstein GO: Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: a multiprocess framework. Appl Cogn Psychol 2000;14:S127-S144.
15.
Guynn MJ: A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective memory: activation/retrieval mode and checking. Int J Psychol 2003;38:245-256.
16.
Smith RE: The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2003;29:347-361.
17.
Smith RE, Bayen UJ: A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2004;30:756-777.
18.
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.
19.
Kliegel M, Martin M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO: Varying the importance of a prospective memory task: differential effects across time- and event-based prospective memory. Memory 2001;9:1-11.
20.
Kliegel M, Martin M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO: Importance effects on performance in event-based prospective memory tasks. Memory 2004;12:553-561.
21.
Cherry KE, Martin RC, Simmons-D'Gerolamo SS, Pinkston JB, Griffing A, Gouvier D: Prospective remembering in younger and older adults: role of the prospective cue. Memory 2001;9:177-193.
22.
Ihle A, Schnitzspahn K, Rendell PG, Luong C, Kliegel M: Age benefits in everyday prospective memory: the influence of personal task importance, use of reminders and everyday stress. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2012;19:84-101.
23.
Niedźwieńska A, Janik B, Jarczyńska A: Age-related differences in everyday prospective memory tasks: the role of planning and personal importance. Int J Psychol 2013, E-pub ahead of print.
24.
Kliegel M, Martin M, Moor C: Prospective memory and ageing: is task importance relevant? Int J Psychol 2003;38:207-214.
25.
Altgassen M, Kliegel M, Brandimonte M, Filippello P: Are older adults more social than younger adults? Social importance increases older adults' prospective memory performance. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2010;17:312-328.
26.
Niedźwieńska A, Barzykowski K: The age prospective memory paradox within the same sample in time-based and event-based tasks. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2012;19:58-83.
27.
Lehrl S, Merz J, Burkhard G, Fischer S: Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest MWT-A; Manual. Göttingen, Hogrefe, 1991.
28.
Härting C, Markowitsch HJ, Neufeld H, Calabrese R, Deisinger K, Kessler J: Wechsler Gedächtnistest - revidierte Fassung (WMS-R). Bern, Huber, 2000.
29.
West R, Bowry R, Krompinger J: The effects of working memory demands on the neural correlates of prospective memory. Neuropsychologia 2006;44:197-207.
30.
Altgassen M, Phillips LH, Henry JD, Rendell PG, Kliegel M: Emotional target cues eliminate age differences in prospective memory. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2010;63:1057-1064.
31.
Einstein GO, McDaniel MA, Manzi M, Cochran B, Baker M: Prospective memory and aging: forgetting intentions over short delays. Psychol Aging 2000;15:671-683.
32.
West R, Craik FIM: Influences on the efficiency of prospective memory in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging 2001;16:682-696.
33.
Schnitzspahn KM, Stahl C, Zeintl M, Kaller CP, Kliegel M: The role of shifting, updating, and inhibition in prospective memory performance in young and older adults. Dev Psychol 2013;49:1544-1553.
34.
West RL: An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychol Bull 1996;120:272-292.
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.
You do not currently have access to this content.