IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0016618.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Bob Uttl

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bob Uttl, 2011. "Transparent Meta-Analysis: Does Aging Spare Prospective Memory with Focal vs. Non-Focal Cues?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0016618
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016618
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016618&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0016618?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bob Uttl, 2008. "Transparent Meta-Analysis of Prospective Memory and Aging," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joana S. Lourenço & Elizabeth A. Maylor, 2015. "When Distraction Holds Relevance: A Prospective Memory Benefit for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Lorenzo Tonetti & Miranda Occhionero & Michele Boreggiani & Andreas Conca & Paola Dondi & Maxime Elbaz & Marco Fabbri & Caroline Gauriau & Giancarlo Giupponi & Damien Leger & Monica Martoni & Chiara R, 2020. "Sleep and Prospective Memory: A Retrospective Study in Different Clinical Populations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-13, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0016618. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.