Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:34:41.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 Associations between prospective memory performance and cognitive domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2023

Eliisa A Lehto*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Maarit Virta
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Ilkka J Järvinen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Nella Schiavone
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Jyrki Launes
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Laura Hokkanen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
*
Correspondence: Eliisa Lehto University of Helsinki [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Executive functions have been shown to predict prospective memory (PM) performance (Martin, Kliegel, & McDaniel, 2003). PM performance has also been associated with retrospective memory and working memory (Smith, 2003; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). We investigated the association between PM performance and cognitive domains (executive functions, episodic memory, working memory) in adults at 40 years.

Participants and Methods:

The participants (n = 470, age 40) were part of a longitudinal study including a cohort with a history of a birth risk (eg. asphyxia, low birth weight, hyperbilirubinemia) prospectively followed since birth and controls without birth risks. PM performance was assessed using the new Finnish Proper Prospective Memory Test (PROPS) offering a score for laboratory tasks and naturalistic tasks separately, for event-based PM (EBPM) and time-based PM (TBPM) performance, and a total score. Composite scores of three cognitive domains - executive functions, episodic memory, working memory -were formed by converting raw scores of nine cognitive test (e.g. the Wechsler subtests, the Stroop test, the Trail Making Test) to z scores, summed up and averaged. We calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the five PROPS scores and the composite scores of the cognitive domains.

Results:

The episodic memory domain score correlated significantly with the PROPS laboratory tasks (rs = .23, p = < .01), naturalistic tasks, (rs = .13, p = < .01), the total score (rs = .23, p = < .01), EBPM (rs = .25, p = < .01), and TBPM (rs = .15, p = < .01). The executive functions domain score correlated with the PROPS laboratory tasks (rs = .17, p = < .01), the total score (rs = .16, p = < .01) and EBPM (rs = .20, p = < .01). The associations between the working memory domain and the PROPS test varied, in the laboratory setting (rs = .14, p = < .01), in the total score (rs = .13, p = < .01) and in EBPM (rs = .21, p = < .01). Furthermore, the composite score of the combined episodic memory and executive functions domains correlated significantly with the PROPS test in the laboratory setting (rs = .25, p = < .01), in the total score (rs = .25, p = < .01) and in EBPM (rs = .28, p = < .01).

Conclusions:

The combination of the episodic memory domain and the executive functions domain was most associated with PM performance measured with the new Finnish Prospective Memory test (PROPS). Only the episodic memory domain was linked with the PROPS tasks in the naturalistic setting. Although the episodic memory domain was more associated with PM performance, the results support the multidomain nature of PM functions.

Type
Poster Session 01: Medical | Neurological Disorders | Neuropsychiatry | Psychopharmacology
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2023