Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:02:47.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rule Monitoring Ability Predicts Event-Based Prospective Memory Performance in Individuals with TBI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2014

Jessica Paxton  and
Nancy Chiaravalloti
Jessica Paxton
Affiliation:
Kessler Foundation, West Orange, New Jersey Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
Nancy Chiaravalloti*
Affiliation:
Kessler Foundation, West Orange, New Jersey Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Nancy Chiaravalloti, Neuropsychology and Neuroscience, Kessler Foundation, 300 Executive Drive, Suite 70, West Orange, NJ 07052. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated that prospective memory (PM) abilities are impaired following traumatic brain injury (TBI). PM refers to the ability to remember to complete a planned action following a delay. PM post-TBI has been shown to be related to performance on neuropsychological tests of executive functioning and retrospective episodic memory (RM). However, the relative influence of impairments in RM versus executive functioning on PM performance post-TBI remains uninvestigated. In the current study, PM and neuropsychological test performance were examined in 45 persons with a history of moderate to severe TBI at least 1 year before enrollment. Regression analyses examined the relative contributions of RM and executive functioning in the prediction of PM performance on the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (RBMT). Results indicated that scores on tests of delayed RM and rule monitoring (i.e., ability to avoid making errors on executive measures) were the strongest predictors of PM. When the interaction between RM impairment and rule monitoring was examined, a positive relationship between PM and rule monitoring was found only in TBI participants with impaired RM. Results suggest that PM performance is dependent upon rule monitoring abilities only when RM is impaired following TBI. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–11)

Keywords

Memory for intentionsExecutive functioningErrorsHead injuryRetrospective memoryPrefrontal cortex
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 20 , Issue 7 , August 2014 , pp. 673 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arenth, P.M., Russell, K.C., Scanlon, J.M., Kessler, L.J., & Ricker, J.H. (2012). Encoding and recognition after traumatic brain injury: Neuropsychological and functional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 333–344.Google Scholar
Banich, M.T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 89–94.Google Scholar
Berkman, E.T., Falk, E.B., & Lieberman, M.D. (2012). Interactive effects of three core goal pursuit processes on brain control systems: Goal maintenance, performance monitoring, and response inhibition. PloS One, 7, 1–11.Google Scholar
Burgess, P.W., & Shallice, T. (1997). The relationship between prospective and retrospective memory: Neuropsychological evidence. In Conway, M.A. (Ed.), Cognitive models of memory (pp. 247–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carey, C.L., Woods, S.P., Damon, J., Halibi, C., Dean, D., Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H. (2008). Discriminant validity and neuroanatomical correlates of rule monitoring in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 46, 1081–1087.Google Scholar
Carlesimo, G.A., Casadio, P., & Caltagirone, C. (2004). Prospective and retrospective components in the memory for actions to be performed in patients with severe closed-head injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 679–688.Google Scholar
Cattie, J.E., Doyle, K., Weber, E., Grant, I., Woods, S.P., & the HIV Neurobehavioral Research Program. (2012). Planning deficits in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders: Component processes, cognitive correlates, and implications for everyday functioning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 906–918.Google Scholar
Chiaravalloti, N.D., Balzano, J., Moore, N.B., & DeLuca, J. (2009). The Open-Trial Selective Reminding Test (OT-SRT) as a tool for the assessment of learning and memory. The Clinical Neuropsychogist, 23, 231–254.Google Scholar
Clune-Ryberg, M., Blanco-Campal, A., Carton, S., Pender, N., O’Brien, D., Phillips, J., Burke, T. (2011). The contribution of retrospective memory, attention and executive functions to the prospective and retrospective components of prospective memory following TBI. Brain Injury, 25, 819–831.Google Scholar
Delis, D., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. (2001). The Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Delis, D., Kramer, J., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B. (2000). California Verbal Learning Test – Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Delprado, J., Kinsella, G., Ong, B., Pike, K., Ames, D., Storey, E., Rand, E. (2012). Clinical measures of prospective memory in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 295–304.Google Scholar
DeLuca, J., Schultheis, M.T., Madigan, N.K., Christodoulou, C., & Averill, A. (2000). Acquisition versus retrieval deficits in traumatic brain injury: Implications for memory rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 1327–1333.Google Scholar
Denney, D.R., & Lynch, S.G. (2009). The impact of multiple sclerosis on patients’ performance on the Stroop Test: Processing speed versus interference. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 451–458.Google Scholar
Draper, K., & Ponsford, J. (2008). Cognitive functioning ten years following traumatic brain injury and rehabilitation. Neuropsychology, 22, 618–625.Google Scholar
Einstein, G.O., McDaniel, M.A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., &Breneiser, J. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327–342.Google Scholar
Einstein, G.O., & McDaniel, M.A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717–726.Google Scholar
Einstein, G.O., & McDaniel, M.A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M.E. Brandimonte, G.O. Einstein & M.A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Fleming, J., Riley, L., Gill, H., Gullo, M.J., Strong, J., & Shum, D. (2008). Predictors of prospective memory in adults with traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 823–831.Google Scholar
Fortin, S., Godbout, L., & Braun, C.M.J. (2003). Cognitive structure of executive deficits in frontally lesioned head trauma patients performing activities of daily living. Cortex, 39, 273–291.Google Scholar
Garavan, H., Ross, T.J., Murphy, K., Roche, R.A.P., & Stein, E.A. (2002). Dissociable executive functions in the dynamic control of behavior: Inhibition, error detection, and correction. Neuroimage, 17, 1820–1829.Google Scholar
Groot, Y.C., Wilson, B.A., Evans, J., & Watson, P. (2002). Prospective memory functioning in people with and without brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 645–654.Google Scholar
Hart, T., Giovannetti, T., Montgomery, M.W., & Schwartz, M.F. (1998). Awareness of errors in naturalistic action after traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 13, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kliegel, M., Altgassen, M., Hering, A., & Rose, N.S. (2011). A process-model based approach to prospective memory impairment in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2166–2177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kliegel, M., Eschen, A., & Thöne-Otto, A.I. (2004). Planning and realization of complex intentions in traumatic brain injury and normal aging. Brain and Cognition, 56, 43–54.Google Scholar
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M., & Einstein, G. (2002). Complex prospective memory and executive control of working memory: A process model. Psychologische Beitrage, 44, 303–318.Google Scholar
Knight, R.G., Harnett, M., & Titov, N. (2005). The effects of traumatic brain injury on the predicted and actual performance of a test of prospective remembering. Brain Injury, 19, 19–27.Google Scholar
Martin, M., Kliegel, M., & McDaniel, M.A. (2003). The involvement of executive functions in prospective memory performance of adults. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 193–206.Google Scholar
Mateer, C.A., Sohlberg, M., & Crinean, J. (1987). Focus on clinical research: Perceptions of memory function in individuals with closed-head injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 2, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathias, J.L., & Mansfield, K.M. (2005). Prospective and declarative memory problems following moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19, 271–282.Google Scholar
Mathias, J.L., & Wheaton, P. (2007). Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology, 21, 212–223.Google Scholar
Maujean, A., Shum, D., & McQueen, R. (2003). Effect of cognitive demand on prospective memory in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Impairment, 4, 135–145.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M.A., & Einstein, G.O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 127–144.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M.A., Glisky, E.L., Guynn, M.J., & Routhieaux, B.C. (1999). Prospective memory: A neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology, 13, 103–110.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M.A., Howard, D.C., & Butler, K.M. (2008). Implementation intentions facilitate prospective memory under high attention demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 716–724.Google Scholar
Mioni, G., Rendell, P.G., Henry, J.D., Cantagallo, A., & Stablum, F. (2013). An investigation of prospective memory functions in people with traumatic brain injury using Virtual Week. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35, 617–630.Google Scholar
Mioni, G., Stablum, F., McClintock, S.M., & Cantagallo, A. (2012). Time-based prospective memory in severe traumatic brain injury patients: The involvement of executive functions and time perception. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 697–705.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N.P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Keeffe, F.M., Dockree, P.M., & Robertson, I.H. (2004). Poor insight in traumatic brain injury mediated by impaired error processing?: Evidence from electrodermal activity. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 101–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Pavawalla, S.P., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Smith, R.E. (2012). Prospective memory after moderate- to-severe traumatic brain injury: A multinomial modeling approach. Neuropsychology, 26, 91–101.Google Scholar
Petrides, M., Alivisatos, B., Meyer, E., & Evans, A.C. (1993). Functional activation of the human frontal cortex during the performance of verbal working memory tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90, 878–882.Google Scholar
Possin, K.L., Brambati, S.M., Rosen, H.J., Johnson, J.K., Pa, J., Weiner, M.W., Kramer, J.H. (2009). Rule violation errors area associated with right lateral prefrontal cortex atrophy in neurodegenerative disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 354–364.Google Scholar
Potvin, M.J., Rouleau, I., Audy, J., Carbonneau, S., & Giguere, J.F. (2011). Ecological prospective memory assessment in patients with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 25, 192–205.Google Scholar
Rajah, M.N., & McIntosh, A.R. (2006). Dissociating prefrontal contributions during a recency memory task. Neuropsychologia, 44, 350–364.Google Scholar
Raskin, S.A., Buckheit, C.A., & Waxman, A. (2012). Effect of type of cue, type of response, time delay and two different ongoing tasks on prospective memory functioning after acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 22, 40–64.Google Scholar
Rios, M., Perianez, J.A., & Munoz-Cespedes, J.M. (2004). Attentional control and slowness of information processing after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 18, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robins, L.N., Helzer, J.E., Croughan, J., & Ratcliff, K.S. (1981). National Institute of Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 381–389.Google Scholar
Roche, N.L., Fleming, J.M., & Shum, D.H. (2002). Self-awareness of prospective memory failure in adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 16, 931–945.Google Scholar
Salthouse, T.A. (1994). The nature of the influence of speed on the adult age differences in cognition. Developmental Psychology, 30, 240–259.Google Scholar
Salthouse, T.A., & Babcock, R.L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 763–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Wright, M.J. (2004). Event-based prospective memory following severe closed-head injury. Neuropsychology, 18, 353–361.Google Scholar
Schnitzspahn, K.M., Stahl, C., Zeintl, M., Kaller, C.P., & Kliegel, M. (2012). The role of shifting, updating, and inhibition in prospective memory performance of young and older adults. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1544–1553.Google Scholar
Scullin, M.K., McDaniel, M.A., Shelton, J.T., & Lee, J.H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 736.Google ScholarPubMed
Shum, D., Levin, H., & Chan, R.C.K. (2011). Prospective memory in patients with closed head injury: A review. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2156–2165.Google Scholar
Smith, R.E., & Bayen, U.J. (2004). A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 756–777.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1982). Symbol Digit Modalities Test Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Stuss, D.T., Alexander, M.P., Shallice, T., Picton, T.W., Binns, M.A., MacDonald, R., Katz, D.I. (2005). Multiple frontal systems controlling response speed. Neuropsychologia, 43, 396–417.Google Scholar
Stuss, D.T., & Alexander, M.P. (2000). Executive functions and the frontal lobes: A conceptual view. Psychological Research, 63, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuss, D.T., & Alexander, M.P. (2007). Is there a dysexecutive syndrome? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 901–915.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Memory Scale – Third Edition Technical Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Williams, J.M. (1991). Memory Assessment Scales. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Cockburn, J., & Baddeley, A. (1985). The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test. England: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Wright, M.J., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Woo, E. (2010). Verbal memory impairment in severe-closed head injury: The role of encoding and consolidation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 728–736.Google Scholar