4.6 Article

Improving Prospective Memory in Healthy Older Adults and Individuals with Very Mild Alzheimer's Disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages 1307-1312

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14134

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; prospective memory; memory strategy; implementation intentions

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [T32 AG00030]
  2. Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: To test the utility of a memory-encoding strategy for improving prospective memory (PM), the ability to remember to execute future goals (e.g., remembering to take medications), which plays an important role in independent living in healthy older adults and those with very mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: Participants were randomly assigned to an encoding strategy condition or a standard encoding condition. SETTING: A longitudinal study conducted at an Alzheimer's disease research center. Testing took place at the center and in a university testing room. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy older adults (Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) = 0.0, n = 38) and those classified as being in the very mild stage of AD (CDR=0.5, n=34). INTERVENTION: A simple strategy (If I see Cue X, then I will perform Intention Y) was used to strengthen PM encoding and reduce the probability of forgetting to execute one's future plans. MEASUREMENTS: PM was assessed using Virtual Week, a laboratory task that requires the simulation of common PM tasks (the types of tasks performed in everyday life), such as taking one's medication at breakfast. RESULTS: The encoding strategy significantly reduced PM failures in healthy older adults and those with very mild Al) and was effective regardless of the individual's episodic memory ability. CONCLUSION: This encoding strategy was successful in reducing PM errors in healthy older adults and those with mild AD with a range of memory abilities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available