La imagen de la ciudad

The Call-In Prospective Memory Test (Cuttler, Graf, Pawluski & Galea, 2011)

The Call-in PM Test is a time-based PM task where participants are required to call the laboratory one week after the initial test-session. Participants select their own time window which governs when they should call the laboratory. Two points are awarded to participants who call the laboratory on the correct day and at the right time. One point is awarded to participants who call the laboratory at the incorrect time. No points are awarded if participants fail to call the laboratory.

The Cambridge Prospective Memory test (Wilson et al., 2005)

The Cambridge Prospective Memory test (CAMPROMPT) includes three measures of event-based PM and 3 measures of time-event-based PM. Over a 20-minute period, participants are asked to partake in some distracter tasks in the form of either a word-finder puzzle or a general knowledge quiz. Meanwhile, participants are also required to complete several PM tasks.

Participants are provided with a kitchen timer for the first two time-based PM tasks. The first time-based PM task requires participants to remind the experimenter to remember an item (e.g. a mug, keys) 7-minutes before the end of the scheduled 20-minute period. When the timer displays 16-minutes, the participant receives a reminder that they need to stop whatever task they are doing and move to another “in 7-minutes time”. This is the second time-based

PM task. The final time-based is governed by a wall-clock where the participant is given a specific time (e.g. 5-minutes after the test-session is complete) at which they need to remind the experimenter to ring the garage/reception.

The first event-based task concerns the general knowledge quiz and involves the participant returning a book to the experimenter following the presentation of a question on the television series, “Eastenders”. The second event-based task requires the participant to return an envelope labelled “MESSAGE” to the experimenter following the receipt of a reminder that there are only 5-minutes left until the end of the test-session. After being informed that the test-session is complete, participants are asked to remind the experimenter of the location of 5 items that were hidden at the start of the test-session. The maximum score for each of the six subtasks is six. A score of six is given if the task is completed without the need for a prompt from the experimenter. Four points are awarded if the task is completed successfully following the receipt of a single prompt from the experimenter. Thereafter, participants are awarded two points if the task is completed upon the receipt of a second prompt, one point if prompting is received but the task is only completed at the second attempt and no points if after prompting, the task has not been completed successfully. A total score for time-based PM and event-based PM is then calculated based on a maximum score of 18 for each. Higher scores represent superior performance on each of these PM measures.

The Karolinska fatigue PM task (Hadjiefthyvoulou et al., 2011a)

The Karolinska fatigue PM Task is a medium-term measure of time-based PM. Upon entering the laboratory, participants are asked indicate their current level of fatigue on the

“Karolinska Sleepiness Scale” (see Gillberg et al., 1994). Participants are asked to provide an indication of their fatigue every 20-minutes, up until the end of the test-session. Participants receive two scores as percentages based on the number of times that they remember to complete the scale during the first and second halves of the test-session. Participants who forget to complete a questionnaire receive a prompt from the experimenter.

The Fruit Prospective Memory Task (Cuttler et al., 2011)

Participants are instructed that they will see pictures of fruit at some time during the test-session. Upon presentation of the fruit, participants are required to stop what they are doing and press the “p” key on a computer keyboard. A total of four pictures are presented during

the test-session and participants receive one point for each correct prospective response that is made.

The JAAM assessment (Jansari, Agnew, Akesson & Murphy, 2004)

The JAAM assessment is a virtual reality assessment whereby participants take the role of someone working in an office environment helping to set up a meeting. Participants are given a scenario to read which describes the virtual environment and their role for the task.

Participants are instructed and shown how to navigate around the virtual environment.

Participants are provided with a list of tasks that need to be completed for their “office manager” (e.g., arranging for items of post to be collected, setting up tables and chairs for a meeting, turning on the coffee machine when the first person arrives for the meeting). Further to the tasks that participants are aware of at the beginning of the task, they are also given a number of memos during the experiment which require them to perform additional tasks or amend a current task.

The JAAM assessment consists of eight subscales: The Planning subscale requires participants to order items in a logical manner rather than their perceived importance. As such, participants have to identify the tasks that should logically be carried out first. The Prioritisation subscale requires participants to order items according to their relative importance. This requires participants to order the most important items first and the less important items last. The Selection subscale requires participants to choose between two or more tasks by deciding which of the tasks is most important. For example, the participant has a number of items of post that need to be sent to different locations and with differing levels of urgency. Participants must therefore select the appropriate postal service to collect the letters and parcels based on their relative urgencies and locations. The Creative Thinking subscale requires participants to solve a number of problems. Participants must find their own solutions to the problems. In one case, participants are required to find a way to cover up some graffiti which has been written in permanent ink. The Adaptive thinking subscale tests participant’s ability to put forward suitable solutions to new problems as they arise.

The three remaining subscales measure PM. The Action-based prospective memory subscale requires participants to execute a task/action cued by a stimulus in the task they are already engaged with. For example, when participants receive a message about new items of post that

need to be sent, they must update the post diary accordingly. In the Event-based prospective memory subscale, participants must remember to execute an event-based PM task. For example, participants are asked to note the specific time of the fire alarms on their notes for the manager. In the Time-based prospective memory subscale, participants must remember to perform a time-based PM task. For example, participants are asked to turn on the overhead projector 10 min before the start of the meeting. Participants are given a rating of 0 (no attempt made), 1 (satisfactory performance) or 2 (perfect performance) for each subscale of each construct. Participants are given a total score as a percentage by summing the raw scores for each subscale, dividing by the total possible score and multiplying by 100.

The long-term delayed recall task (Hadjiefthyvoulou et al., 2011a)

This task is based on a paradigm developed by Einstein et al. (1995) and Mathias and Mansfield (2005). The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task (RAVLT) is amended to provide a long-term measure of PM. The RAVLT consists of two lists of 15 words that the researcher reads to each participant. For 5 consecutive trials, the researcher reads the list to the participant who is then asked to recall as many words as possible. Following the fifth trial, the researcher reads a separate list of 15 words to the participant. This is called the interference trial. Upon completing the interference trial, the participant is asked to write down as many words from the first word list without hearing the list again. Twenty-minutes later, the participant is asked to write down as many words from the first list as possible. This is the seventh trial. The prospective component of this task involves the participant being asked to write down as many words as they can recall from the first list, one, two, and three weeks after the time of testing. Each time, the participant is asked to date their response sheet and to return it to the experimenter in an envelope provided for them. Participants receive a score out of three based on the number of delayed recall test sheets returned. Higher scores are indicative of better PM performance.

The Memory for Intentions Screening Test (Raskin, Buckheit, & Sherrod, 2010)

The Memory for Intentions Screening Test is a 30-minute laboratory-based measure of PM which is compromised of four, two-minute trials (e.g., “When I hand you a request for records form, write your doctors’ names on it”) and four 15-minute trials (e.g., “In 15 minutes, use that paper to write the number of medications you are currently taking”) during which the participant is engaged in an ongoing distractor task (i.e., a standardised word

search). Both sets of trials (two-minute and 15-minute trials) are balanced on time- and event-based cues and all cues are non-focal. Responses are scored on a scale of 0–2 for each item, such that scores for the two-minute and 15-minute trials range from 0–8. Higher scores are indicative of better PM performance

The F1 event-based PM task (Hadjiefthyvoulou et al., 2011a)

The F1 event-based PM task is based on Fisk and Warr’s (1996) processing speed task.

However, recent amendments have included the addition of an event-based measure of PM.

Firstly participants are presented with two patterns; one located at the top; and one located at the bottom of a computer screen. The participant is then required to indicate whether they believe the two patterns are the same or different. The “same” responses are programmed to the “/” key on a keyboard and the “different” responses are programmed to the “z” key on a keyboard.

In an event-based PM component, participants are also required to press the “F1” key following the presentation of the words “Please wait a moment” in the top left hand corner of the computer screen. Participants are informed that this will store their responses in the memory of the computer. In the event that a participant does not press “F1”, their scores are reported as “errors”. In total, this task is completed three times, in each case at three levels of complexity, and a final event-based PM score is calculated based upon the number of times that a participant forgets to press the “F1” key.

The Real World Prospective Memory Task (Heffernan, O’Neill & Moss, 2012)

The Real World PM Task is a measure of objective everyday PM. Participants are presented with a list of 15 specific locations around a university campus (e.g., “when you reach the Students Union”), accompanied by a list of associated actions (e.g., “Ask if there is a job available”). The participant is given 1.5 min to memorise the list before receiving a short tour of the university. Participants are required to verbally recall both the location and the associated action, but only when they reached a location that was on the original list. The order of the action pairings on the tour are different to the order of the location-action pairings on the original list.

A number of non-target locations that are not included on the original list are also included which act as non-target distracter locations (e.g., passing a coffee shop on campus).

Interruptions are included whereby the participant engages in a conversation with the researcher about everyday university life. One point is given for each location–action combination correctly recalled. Scores range from 0 to 15 with the higher score indicating better PM performance.

The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test- Extended Version (RBMT; Wilson et al., 1985) The RBMT consists of 8 subtasks relating to aspects of everyday memory functioning. The PM components of the RBMT consist of three subtasks. The Belonging subtask provides a measure of event-based PM. At the start of the test-session, the experimenter hides an object (e.g. a pen) in a specific location (e.g. on a shelf). The participant is required to remind the experimenter of the object and its location at the end of the test-session. A maximum score of two is awarded if the object and its location are correctly recalled. A score of one is awarded if the object and its location are correctly recalled after the receipt of a prompt. A score of zero is awarded if the object and its location are not recalled.

The Appointment subtask provides a measure of time-based PM. An alarm is set for a period of 20-minutes. The participant is required to ask a predefined question at the end of the 20-minute period. A score of two is awarded if the question is recalled without the receipt of a prompt. A score of one is awarded if the question is asked following the receipt of a prompt. A score of zero is awarded if the participant does not recall the question.

The message subtask provides a measure of event-based PM. The experimenter demonstrates a Route, consisting of five sections, to the participant depositing a message at a specific location on the way. Participants are required to replicate the Route whilst depositing the message at the correct location. This task is completed immediately after the initial observation and after a delay. A maximum score of three is awarded if no errors are made during the two attempts. Scores then gradually decrease according to the total number of errors made during both attempts. The minimum score for this task is zero.

The Reminder Prospective Memory Task (Cuttler & Graf, 2009)

Participants are asked to give the experimenter a reminder once they have completed a number of cognitive tasks. Participants are provided with details relating to the final

cognitive task that they will complete. However, motivation to carry out the PM intention is manipulated in two conditions; high motivation and low motivation. In a high motivation condition, participants are asked to remind the experimenter to award them with their participant research credits. In a low motivation condition, participants are asked to remind the experimenter to email their supervisor. Two points are awarded if participants give the reminder at the correct time. One point is awarded if participants give the reminder at the incorrect time. No points are awarded if participants fail to give the reminder.

The Video-based prospective memory task (Bartholomew, Holroyd & Heffernan, 2010) The video-based PM task is based on a modified version of a paradigm developed by Titov and Knight (2001). Participants are presented with a list of 17 specific locations (e.g., “at HMV”) and associated actions. Participants are required to carry out a task (e.g., “buy a CD”) or answer a question about something at the location (e.g., “what colour is that stall’s canopy?”) upon presentation of location cues. During the task itself, participants are presented with a 10-minute video depicting a shopping area. Shop fronts and passers-by provide location cues where participants should then recall location–action combinations.

Participants are given a total score between 0 and 17 depending on the number of location-action pairings correctly recalled. One point is awarded for every location–location-action combination correctly recalled. Participants receive no points if only one member of the pair is correctly identified.

The Virtual Week task (Rendell & Craik, 2000)

The Virtual Week is a laboratory based task that aims to capture features of real-life PM tasks by including recurring PM tasks, non-recurring PM tasks, event-based PM tasks and time-based PM tasks. The Virtual Week itself is a board game where players move around a board via the roll of a dice. Several times of day where people are most likely to be awake are listed at various points around the board. Each circuit of the board that a player completes constitutes one “day” in the game. Each “day” contains 10 PM tasks; 4 “regular” PM tasks; 4

“irregular” PM tasks; and 2 time-checks.

The regular tasks are made up of two event-based PM tasks where participants are instructed to take some antibiotics with breakfast and dinner, and two time-based PM tasks where

participants are required to take asthma medication at 11 a.m and 9 p.m. In the two time-check tasks, a stop-clock is started at the beginning of each circuit of the board and participants are required to complete two lung tests, at 2-minutes 30 seconds and at 4-minutes and 15 seconds. Importantly, these times are different to the times which are listed on the board. The two time-check tasks serve to provide a “breaking set” from the board game activity. Players must move around the board seven times to complete the “Virtual Week”

(see Rendell et al., 2007).

5.4 Chapter summary

The PMQ and The PRMQ are two self-report measures which have been used to investigate the effects of illicit drugs on PM (see Cuttler et al., 2012; Fisk & Montgomery, 2008;

Heffernan, Clark, Bartholomew & Stephens, 2010a). However, the validity of each of these measures is questionable (PMQ; Hannon et al., 1995; Uttl & Kibreab, 2011; PRMQ; Kliegel

& Jäger, 2006; Mäntylä, 2003; Uttl & Kibreab, 2011) and this has given rise to the increased use of laboratory-based measures in many studies. Laboratory-based measures provide researchers with a more objective way of investigating PM deficits across samples. The Virtual Week task (Rendell & Craik, 2000), the F1 event-based PM task (Hadjiefthyvoulou et al., 2011a), the long-term delayed recall PM task (Hadjiefthyvoulou et al., 2011a), the fatigue PM task (Hadjiefthyvoulou et al., 2011a) and the CAMPROMPT (Wilson et al., 2005) are among the laboratory-based PM measures commonly used in drug-related research. This literature is discussed at length in Chapter 6.

Chapter 6: The effects of licit and illicit drugs on prospective memory