This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]

On: 23 March 2015, At: 04:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pijp20

The involvement of executive functions in

prospective memory performance of adults
a a b
Mike Martin , Matthias Kliegel & Mark A. McDaniel
a
University of Zurich , Switzerland
b
University of New Mexico , Albuquerque, USA
Published online: 13 May 2010.

To cite this article: Mike Martin , Matthias Kliegel & Mark A. McDaniel (2003) The involvement of executive
functions in prospective memory performance of adults , International Journal of Psychology, 38:4, 195-206, DOI:
10.1080/00207590344000123

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000123

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 38 (4), 195–206

The involvement of executive functions

in prospective memory performance of adults

Mike Martin and Matthias Kliegel Mark A. McDaniel

University of Zurich, University of New Mexico,
Switzerland Albuquerque, USA
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015

T he present study examines the relationship between prospective memory performance and executive functioning. The
four phases of the prospective memory process—intention formation, intention retention, reinstantiation of the
intention, and intention execution—are assumed to require different amounts of executive processing, most of which is
demanded in the phases of intention formation and intention execution. At present, though, it is still unclear whether, and
to what extent, prefrontal executive systems are involved in different kinds of prospective memory tasks, as some findings
suggest that prospective memory might rather rely on nonstrategic processes that are unlikely to depend on prefrontal
executive systems. Therefore, this study focuses on the following questions: (1) to what degree does executive functioning
predict prospective memory performance in different standard prospective memory tasks and, furthermore, are certain
executive measures better predictors than others; (2) are age-related effects in different prospective memory measures due
to individual differences in executive functioning; and (3) do age-related differences in prospective memory exist that are
not explained by individual differences in executive functioning. In a sample of 80 adults (20–80 years), we applied four
instruments to measure prospective memory: a traditional single-task paradigm, two more complex tasks—one time-based
and one event-based—and a highly complex multi-task paradigm. We further assessed a broadly defined construct of
executive functioning using several standard neuropsychological tests. Results showed that executive functioning did not
predict performance in the simple single-task paradigm. However, executive functioning, but not age, predicted perfor-
mance in the two more complex standard tests of prospective remembering, and both executive functioning and age
predicted performance in the most complex paradigm. In sum, the obtained data underline the assumption that frontal/
executive functions are related to prospective memory performance across a range of prospective paradigms. It also seems
clear that age differences in prospective memory performance partially depend on age-related individual differences in
frontal/executive functions.

L a présente étude examine la relation entre la performance de la mémoire prospective et le fonctionnement exécutif. Il est
présumé que les quatre phases du processus de la mémoire prospective (la formation de l’intention, la rétention de
l’intention, la représentation d’une abstraction par l’utilisation d’un exemple concret de l’intention et l’exécution de
l’intention) requièrent des traitements exécutifs d’ampleur variable, la plupart étant plus exigeants dans les phases de la
formation de l’intention et de l’exécution de l’intention. Cependant, actuellement, la façon et l’ampleur avec lesquelles les
systèmes préfrontaux exécutifs sont impliqués dans les différents types de tâches de la mémoire prospective ne sont pas
claires étant donné que les résultats d’étude suggèrent que la mémoire prospective ferait plutôt appel à des processus non
stratégiques étant probablement indépendants des systèmes préfrontaux exécutifs. La présente étude vise à examiner les
questions suivantes: (1) à quel degré le fonctionnement exécutif prédit la performance de la mémoire prospective dans
différentes tâches prospectives standards et, par ailleurs, est-ce que certaines mesures exécutives sont de meilleurs prédicteurs
que d’autres?; (2) est-ce que les effets de l’âge dans les différentes mesures de mémoire prospective sont dus aux différences
individuelles dans le fonctionnement exécutif?; (3) est-ce qu’il existe des différences reliées à l’âge dans la mémoire
prospective qui ne sont pas expliquées par les différences individuelles dans le fonctionnement exécutif? Nous avons

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Mike Martin, Institute of Psychology, Department of Gerontopsychology,
University of Zurich, Schaffhauserstr. 15, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland (E-mail: m.martin@psychologie.unizh.ch).
Part of the preparation of this manuscript was supported by DFG grant MA 1896/4-1. Appreciation is expressed to Sonja
Barth for experimental assistance, and to Caroline Moor for helpful comments on a prior version of the manuscript.
© 2003 International Union of Psychological Science
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html DOI: 10.1080/00207590244000205
 196 MARTIN, KLIEGEL, McDANIEL

administré, auprès d’un échantillon de 80 adultes (20–80 ans), quatre instruments pour mesurer la mémoire prospective :
un paradigme traditionnel de tâche simple, deux tâches plus complexes—une basée sur le temps et l’autre basée sur les
événements—et un paradigme multi-tâches très complexe. Nous avons également évalué un construit de fonctionnement
exécutif largement défini en utilisant plusieurs tests neuropsychologiques standards. Les résultats ont soulevé que le
fonctionnement exécutif ne prédit pas la performance dans les paradigmes de tâche simple. Cependant, le fonctionnement
exécutif prédit la performance dans les deux tests standards plus complexes de rappel prospectif, ce qui n’est pas le cas de
l’âge. Enfin, à la fois le fonctionnement exécutif et l’âge prédisent la performance dans le paradigme le plus complexe. En
somme, les données obtenues soutiennent la prédiction que les fonctions frontales/exécutives sont reliées à la performance
dans la mémoire prospective à travers une gamme de paradigmes prospectifs. Aussi, il apparaît clairement que les différences
d’âge dans la performance de la mémoire prospective dépendent partiellement des différences individuelles reliées à l’âge
dans les fonctions frontales/exécutives.

E l presente estudio examina la relación entre el desempeño de la memoria prospectiva y el funcionamiento ejecutivo. Se
supone que las cuatro fases del proceso de memoria prospectiva –la formación de la intención, la retención de la
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015

intención, la representación de una abstracción por medio de una instancia concreta de la intención y la ejecución de la
intención- requieren diferentes cantidades de procesamiento ejecutivo, del cual hay más demanda en las fases de formación
de la intención y ejecución de la intención. Al presente, sin embargo, no queda claro si los sistemas ejecutivos prefrontales
están involucrados en diferentes tipos de tareas de memoria prospectiva, y en qué medida, ya que algunos hallazgos
sugieren que la memoria prospectiva depende más bien de procesos no estratégicos que es poco probable que dependan de
los sistemas ejecutivos prefrontales. Por consiguiente, el presente estudio se centra en las siguientes preguntas: (1) ¿en qué
medida el funcionamiento ejecutivo predice el desempeño de la memoria prospectiva en diferentes tareas tipificadas de
memoria prospectiva y, es más, si ciertas medidas predicen mejor que otras?; (2) ¿se deben los efectos relativos a la edad
en diferentes medidas de memoria prospectiva, a diferencias individuales en el funcionamiento ejecutivo? y (3) ¿existen
diferencias relativas a la edad en la memoria prospectiva que no pueden explicarse en términos de diferencias individuales
en el funcionamiento ejecutivo? Una muestra de 80 adultos (20–80 años) respondieron a cuatro instrumentos que medían
memoria prospectiva: un paradigma tradicional de una sola tarea, dos tareas más complejas –una basada en tiempo y la otra
en el evento, y un paradigma multi-tarea muy complejo. Se evaluó además un constructo de funcionamiento ejecutivo
definido ampliamente, por medio del uso de varias pruebas neuropsicológicas estándar. Los resultados muestran que el
funcionamiento ejecutivo no predice el desempeño en el paradigma de una sola tarea simple. Sin embargo, el funcionamiento
ejecutivo, mas no la edad, predice el desempeño en dos o más pruebas estándar de recuerdo prospectivo, y tanto el
funcionamiento ejecutivo como la edad predicen el desempeño en el paradigma más complejo. En resumen, los datos
obtenidos subrayan el supuesto de que las funciones frontales/ejecutivas se relacionan con el desempeño de la memoria
prospectiva a lo largo de un espectro de paradigmas prospectivos. También parece ser que las diferencias de edad en el
desempeño de la memoria prospectiva dependen parcialmente de diferencias individuales relativas a la edad en las funciones
frontales/ejecutivas.

Remembering to perform an intended action at a
particular point in the future, i.e., prospective memory,
is essential in the everyday life of older adults, because
self-initiated acting upon earlier formed intentions is at
the core of their independent living. Without it or with
low levels of performance, appointments (Kvavilashvili,
1987; Ma. Martin, 1986; West, 1988), medication (Park
& Kidder, 1996), or, more generally, chances to act are
likely to be missed (Ellis, 1996; Maylor, 1993).
However, research focusing on prospective memory
in old age is in its infancy (cf. Roediger, 1996), with
several fundamental issues just beginning to receive
theoretical and empirical attention. One such issue
concerns the neuropsychological systems and
processes that support prospective remembering. An
initial proposal is that prospective memory
performance depends on the prefrontal systems and
the integrity of the executive functions that these
systems subserve (Bisiacchi, 1996; Burgess, Veitch, de
Lacy Costello, & Shallice, 2000; Glisky, 1996; McDaniel,
Glisky, Rubin, Guynn, & Routhieaux, 1999; see also
Stuss & Benson, 1987). Frontally mediated executive
functions are believed to include planning, interruption
and inhibition of responses, monitoring of
environmental events, and flexible initiation of
responses to those events (Shimamura, Janowsky, &
Squire, 1991). The prospective memory process
consists of the four phases of intention formation,
intention retention, reinstantiation of the intention, and
execution of the reinstantiated intention (Ellis, 1996;
Kliegel, Martin, McDaniel, & Einstein, in press;
Kvavilashvili & Ellis, 1996). The theoretical assumption
is that frontal functions are little involved in the
retention phase, and intimately involved in
performance of the intention formation and intention
execution phase of prospective memory tasks. Older
adults’ prospective performance in tasks that
emphasize the phases theoretically making the
strongest demands on the executive functions should
be highly related to executive function measures (cf.

West, 1996). However, there is virtually no empirical
work that has attempted to evaluate this assumption.
Further, the limited work that is available shows
somewhat mixed findings. Some studies report relations
between frontal processes and prospective
remembering in adults (Bisiacchi, 2000; Burgess, 2000a;
Burgess et al., 2000; Kopp & Thöne, 2000; McDaniel
et al., 1999), whereas others do not necessarily
implicate frontal processes (Bisiacchi, 1996; Cockburn,
Keene, & Hope, 2000; Mi. Martin, Kliegel, McDaniel,
& Einstein, 2000).
These mixed patterns suggest several possibilities.
One clear possibility is that prospective memory in
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
adulthood involves a range of processes that depend
on the particular instantiation of the prospective memory
task (cf. Einstein & McDaniel, 1990; McDaniel &
Einstein, 2000). While some prospective memory tasks
appear to require prefrontal executive processes of
planning, monitoring, or flexibility in response
preparation, others seem to rely on relatively
nonstrategic processes, i.e., processes that might not
depend on prefrontal executive systems (Guynn,
McDaniel, & Einstein, 2001; Kliegel, Martin, McDaniel,
& Einstein, 2001; Kliegel, McDaniel, & Einstein, 2000;
McDaniel & Einstein, 2000; McDaniel, Robinson-
Riegler, & Einstein, 1998). The amount of required
executive processing is likely to depend on the degree
to which the dependent prospective measures focus
on the intention formation and/or execution phases
versus the retention phase. The more relative weight is
given to intention formation and intention execution,
the stronger should be the relation to executive
functioning.
To inform this possibility, the first goal of the
present study was to investigate the contribution of
prefrontal executive processes to performance in four
standard prospective memory tasks. As a
consequence, we test if differences in executive
functioning are related to differences in prospective
memory performance in young and old adults. Unlike
earlier studies with only old adults (e.g., McDaniel et
al., 1999), we compare prospective memory performance
and its relation to executive functioning between
young and old adults in four different prospective
memory tasks.
The selected prospective memory tasks differentially
represent several major components on which such
tasks can vary. One critical component is whether the
task is time-based or event-based (Einstein &
McDaniel, 1990, 1996). Time-based prospective
memory involves remembering to perform the intended
action at a certain time or after a certain amount of time
has elapsed (e.g., remembering to take cookies out of
the oven in 10 minutes). Presumably, time-based tasks
PROSPECTIVE MEMORY PERFORMANCE 197
(for which no external reminders are implemented) are
dependent on self-initiated monitoring in the intention
execution phase of the prospective task, an
assumption consistent with age-related deficits in
monitoring patterns and subsequent prospective
memory performance (Einstein, McDaniel, Richardson,
Guynn, & Cunfer, 1995) and with increased time-based
performance as a function of the importance of the task
(Kliegel et al., 2001). Based on the idea that prefrontal
functions control monitoring (Shallice & Burgess,
1991; Shimamura et al., 1991), prefrontal systems would
be expected to be significantly associated with time-
based prospective memory. No published study has
yet examined this prediction1, and for this reason one
of our prospective tasks was a standard laboratory
time-based task (Einstein, Smith, McDaniel, & Shaw,
1997; Kliegel et al., 2001).
Event-based prospective memory involves remem-
bering to perform the intended action when some exter-
nal event occurs (such as remembering to give a
message to a colleague when passing her office). Thus,
in contrast to time-based prospective memory, event-
based tasks have external cues that can stimulate
retrieval of the intended action. In a sense, the event-
based task is similar to cued recall (McDaniel & Einstein,
1993), and thereby may attenuate the degree of self-
initiated retrieval or monitoring required to remember the
intended action at the appropriate moment in the
intention execution phase of the prospective task
(Einstein & McDaniel, 1990, 1996). For instance, in an
event-based prospective memory task introduced by
Einstein et al. (1997), participants were instructed to
press a particular function key on a computer keyboard
when a specified target item appeared in a word-rating
task. Age-related declines on the task were modest
(Einstein et al., 1997, Experiment 1), and varying the
importance of the task did not change performance levels
(Kliegel et al., 2001). Both findings suggest that relatively
few strategic retrieval processes support this event-
based task. To evaluate this idea, our second and third
prospective memory tasks were two standard event-
based prospective memory tasks. As a standard
laboratory task, the event-based task used in Kliegel et
al. (2001; cf. Einstein et al., 1997) was administered. In
addition, as a standard clinical event-based prospective
memory task, the Remembering-a-Belonging subtest
from the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (RBMT;
Wilson, Cockburn, & Baddeley, 1985; for applications:
e.g., Cockburn & Smith, 1988, 1991, 1994; Evans &
1
Bisiacchi (1996) tested time-based prospective memory
but did not separate it from event-based prospective memory
in relating performance to neuropsychological variables.
 198 MARTIN, KLIEGEL, McDANIEL
Wilson, 1992; Hon, Huppert, Holland, & Watson, 1998;
Huppert & Beardsall, 1993; Wisemann, Ratcliff, Chase,
Laporte, Robertson, & Colantonio, 2000) was applied.
In this task, participants are required to demand the
return of an item at the end of the session before leaving
the room. Because there is only a single event-based
action that has to be remembered, we reasoned that
performance on the RBMT should not rely on strategic
executive control processes in the intention execution
phase of the task.
Our fourth prospective memory task was a complex
prospective memory task patterned on that used by
Kliegel et al. (2000; see also Burgess, 1996; Burgess et
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
al., 2000). We selected this task because (1) participants
are required to execute a set of six intended actions
rather than a single action after the retention (i.e., delay
phase); (2) because the appropriate delayed execution
of the set of actions involves event-based and time-
based characteristics; and (3) because planning is
explicitly required in the intention formation phase of
this task. We reasoned that these complex demands in
both the intention formation and the intention execution
phases should require the most robust degree of
prefrontal executive involvement, if such involvement
indeed is central to prospective memory performance in
the respective task phases.
Another possibility for the mixed patterns from the
initial investigations of the importance of prefrontal
executive processes in prospective remembering is that
executive functioning may have been inadequately
captured by the measures used. As noted above,
prefrontal systems are thought to support a wide array
of executive functions, and it is unlikely that one
measure will adequately capture the integrity of these
executive functions. Accordingly, we used a broadly
defined construct of executive functioning based on a
set of three executive functioning tasks from clinical and
experimental literature, rather than restricting focus to
just one specific measure (for a similar procedure see
McDaniel et al., 1999). Further, we used assessments
that are thought to index particular components of
frontal function, such as planning, inhibition, monitoring
ongoing activity, and cognitive and response flexibility,
that are theoretically related to prospective memory
performance as sketched above.
A second goal was to explore a corollary hypothesis
to the idea that prefrontal processes are intimately
involved in prospective memory performance. Based
on the idea that frontal functioning may show
preferential decline with age (e.g., Schretlen et al., 2000;
Wecker, Kramer, Wisniewski, Delis, & Kaplan, 2000;
West, 1996), we suggest that age-related decline in
prospective memory will be significantly associated with
decline in frontal/executive functioning. Others have
made similar proposals (e.g., Glisky, 1996) and there is
some preliminary data to support this hypothesis (Kliegel
et al., 2000) but, to date, this hypothesis has not been
specifically tested. The idea is that the age-related
differences found in prospective memory will be
eliminated once the variance in performance due to
frontal/executive functioning is taken into account. In
this study, by using several prospective memory tasks
on which either significant age-related differences have
been established (time-based, e.g., Einstein et al., 1995;
Park, Hertzog, Kidder, Morrell, & Mayhorn, 1997;
complex prospective memory, Kliegel et al., 2000, 2001,
2002) or tendencies for age-related differences are
evident (event-based, cf. Cherry & LeCompte, 1999;
Einstein et al., 1997; Huppert, Johnson, & Nickson, 2000;
Maylor, 1996; Park et al., 1997; but cf. Kliegel et al.,
2000, for different findings concerning the RBMT), we
are able to test a more complete version of this
hypothesis. Alternatively, it might be that there is some
age-related component of prospective memory
performance that is not mediated by frontal/executive
processes. That is, even after factoring out effects of
frontal/executive processes, age deficits may remain. If
so, then we will have support for the assumption that
prospective memory signals age-related decline that is
differentiated from typical markers of age-related frontal
decline (cf. Wecker et al., 2000).
Overall, we expect the weakest effect of executive
functioning differences on the RBMT performance, a
medium effect of executive functioning differences on
the standard experimental event- and time-based
paradigm performances, and a strong effect of executive
functioning differences on the performance in the
complex prospective paradigm. In addition, when
groups of young, old/high executive functioning, and
old/low executive functioning groups are compared, we
expect no effects of age and executive functioning
differences in the RBMT performance, effects of
executive functioning differences on the performances
in the experimental event- and time-based paradigm
performances, and effects of executive functioning
differences and age on the performance in the complex
prospective paradigm.
The difference in the relations can be explained by
the differential emphases that these prospective
memory paradigms lay on the intention formation and
the intention execution phases. Whereas the RBMT
focuses on the retention and reinstantiation component
in a least demanding environment, the standard
experimental paradigms focus on the intention execution
in a somewhat demanding task environment. Finally,
the complex prospective paradigm maximizes the
interindividual differences in the intention formation and
the intention execution phases in a demanding task
 PROSPECTIVE MEMORY PERFORMANCE 199

environment, thus theoretically requiring the largest
involvement of executive functions.
METHOD
Participants
The 80 participants in this study, including 40 young
and 40 old adults, completed the battery of tests in an
average time of 120 minutes, distributed over two testing
sessions an average of 1 week apart. The young
participants were students of the University of Mainz
who volunteered. The old participants were community
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
break and some other tasks. Using example sheets, the
tasks and the rules of our modified six-elements task
were explained to the participant. Specifically, the
participants were asked to remember to carry out six
subtasks in a 6-minute period of time. The six subtasks
were divided into two similar sets (sets A and B) of three
(word finding, solving arithmetic problems, and writing
down the names of pictures). We designed each subtask
so that it would need more than 1 minute to complete.
After the subtasks were explained, participants were told
where the material for these subtasks was stored (in the
second drawer of the participant’s table, divided in three
file-folders according to the task type) and that there

dwelling volunteers. As Table 1 indicates, despite small would be a few rules to follow. The rules explicated that
differences between the groups with respect to gender, earlier problems would be given more points than later
health, or years of formal schooling, which are to be ones in each subtask, that each of the six subtasks would
expected when recruiting samples of young and old be given equal weight, and that doing two subtasks (A)
adults, the two groups seem largely comparable. and (B) of the same type one after the other was not
allowed. When they were aware of the rules, i.e., were
Instruments able to recall them perfectly, the participants were told
that they would have to remember to work on all six
Prospective memory measures tasks, and that they would have to open the drawer and
initiate these tasks by themselves after answering the
The complex or multitask prospective memory
question about their date of birth in the “participant
paradigm (MTPM; Kliegel et al., 2000, Kliegel, Martin,
information” questionnaire that had previously been
McDaniel, & Einstein, 2002a; Martin et al., 2000) is a
explained. Finally, the participants were asked to verbally
modified six-elements task after Shallice and Burgess
develop a plan for the multitask prospective memory
(1991). The task consists of three phases: an
paradigm. After a filled delay (in which inhibition and
introduction phase, in which the participants are
event-based prospective memory were assessed), the
required to develop a plan for executing the prospective
experimenter made sure that all participants
task, a delay phase, in which individual difference
reinstantiated the original execution intention, i.e.,
variables can be assessed, and a performance phase, in
participants not initiating the multitask prospective
which the multitask prospective memory paradigm had
memory paradigm by themselves were prompted by the
to be executed. In the introduction phase, participants
experimenter. This way, the focus of the prospective
were told that at a certain point—when they would have
memory task is clearly on the intention planning and the
to fill out a personal information questionnaire—they
execution phases, whereas retention and reinstantiation
would be required to execute a set of six tasks. The
are kept stable between participants. After having
participants were informed that this would take place
worked on the six elements task for 6 minutes, the
during the second part of the experiment, after a short
participants filled out the rest of their “participant
information” questionnaire. We also interviewed all
TABLE 1 participants about how well they remembered the
Demographic characteristics of young and old adults instructions and their original plans. Finally, participants
Young adults Old adults were debriefed by the experimenter. The dependent
(N = 40) (N = 40) variables are the number of subtasks started (MTPM/
Age M = 24.8 M = 69.3 performance) and the percentage of recalled executable
SD = 2.0 SD = 5.6 actions of the original plan from the planning phase of
Range = 22–31 Range = 60–80 the MTPM as an indicator of retrospective memory (note
Gender that for experimental purposes we tried to minimize age
Female N = 21 N = 30
Male N = 19 N = 10
differences in this measure).
Years of education M = 13.2 M = 12.2 From experimental psychology literature, we selected
SD = 0.9 SD = 2.1 two paradigms. One involves giving the person a
Health a M = 3.9 M = 3.4 specific cue that will be presented during their ongoing
SD = 0.9 SD = 0.7 activity, thus putting a strong emphasis on the execution
a
Rated on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). phase of the task. For this laboratory version of an event-
 200 MARTIN, KLIEGEL, McDANIEL
based prospective memory task, all participants were
given a slightly modified standard prospective memory
paradigm introduced by Einstein et al. (1997). The
ongoing task was a computerized word rating task, in
which 26 words (e.g., house, phone, love, war, etc.) had
to be rated on four dimensions (concreteness, familiarity,
pleasantness, and seriousness). On each trial one word
was presented with one dimension and a rating scale
for 5 seconds on the computer screen. The rating had
to be done by pressing the corresponding number key
on the computer keyboard. All 26 words were presented
four times in the same order with changing rating
dimensions. The presentation order of the rating
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
dimensions was randomized but one dimension was
never presented twice in a row. Hence, 104 trials were
presented to every participant. The prospective memory
task was to press a target key whenever the German
word “Gespräch” (i.e., conversation) appeared on the
screen as a word to be rated. The target word appeared
every 2 minutes, and the task lasted 8 minutes and 40
seconds.
Another experimental prospective memory task
involves requiring the subject to respond after a
particular time interval, thus also emphasizing the
execution phase of the prospective task. For this
laboratory version of a time-based prospective memory
task, the materials were identical to those used in the
event-based version with two exceptions: The
prospective memory task was to press a target key on
the computer keyboard every 2 minutes after having
started. The response was scored as correct if it
occurred within a time window of plus or minus 5
seconds. Again, all instructions and materials were
presented on the computer screen, and the task lasted 8
minutes and 40 seconds. In addition, participants were
told that they could monitor the time by pressing a
yellow key, when a time counter clock would appear for
2 seconds.
Our fourth standard measure of prospective memory
was selected from clinical/assessment literature. The
task was the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test
(RBMT; Wilson et al., 1985), from which we selected the
Remembering-a-Belonging subtest. In this test, the
experimenter requests a personal belonging from the
participant at the beginning of the experimental session
and instructs the participant to demand the return of
the item at the end of the session before leaving the
room, without any additional reminding on the part of
the experimenter. The dependent variable is the correct
request to return the belonging after a delay of
approximately 45 minutes. In this test, there is little
emphasis on the intention planning and intention
execution phases, but, instead, the retention and
reinstantiation of the intention are emphasized.
Executive functioning measures
In order to measure executive functions, a number of
instruments have been developed and are currently in
clinical and research use. We selected three prominent
measures, trying to capture the essential aspects of
executive functioning. The calculated factor score
derived from the raw scores can be used for individual
analyses and to split the groups into young, old/high
executive functioning, and old/low executive
functioning.
The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST; Heaton,
Chelune, Talley, Kay, & Curtiss, 1993) is a computerized
test to measure the ability to shift cognitive strategies
or sets in response to changing environmental
contingencies (e.g., Greve, Brooks, Crouch, & Williams,
1997). In the test, participants have to sort a deck of 64
cards to match 1 of 4 stimulus cards. The computer tells
the participant if the answer is right or wrong. Once the
participant has made 10 consecutive “correct” matches
to the initial sorting principle (i.e., colour), the sorting
principle is changed to form or number without a
warning, requiring the participant to use the feedback
to develop a new sorting rule or, in other words, to shift
sets. The dependent variable is the number of categories
participants have completed after having sorted 64 cards.
We included a colour–word version of the Stroop
task (cf. Stroop, 1935; for applications cf. Houx, Jolles,
& Vreeling, 1993) in order to measure inhibition (e.g.,
Dempster, 1992; Spieler, Balota, & Faust, 1996). In this
task, the word stimuli consisted of four colour names
(red, blue, green, and yellow) written in black ink (trial 1:
read the words as fast as you can), the four colour names
printed in colour bars (trial 2: name the colours as fast
as you can), and the four colour names printed in
mismatching colours (trial 3: name the colours the words
are written in as fast as you can). Each Stroop condition
began with practice of the top line consisting of 5 items,
followed by timed performance on the 20 test items
(consisting of 5 rows of 4 items each). The dependent
variable is the time difference between the baseline
(colour bars) and the interference condition.
The Tower of London (TOL) is a planning task in which
difficulty can be varied by using different end states that
have to be achieved starting from a given starting state
(e.g., Morris, Evenden, Sahakian, & Robbins, 1987; Ward
& Allport, 1997). The participants’ task is to make the
fewest possible moves of different-sized disks to reach
the end state. The dependent variable is the difference
between the minimum number of moves and the number
of moves the participants made.
Results from the principal components analysis
with z-scores of all three executive measures sug-
gested a single executive factor representing the

common variance of all three executive tests and
explaining 57.6% of the variance. Component
loadings were in the expected directions and
ranged between .70 to .80. Using the standardized
factor score (for a similar procedure see McDaniel
et al., 1999), a three-way median split between all
participants in the study resulted in a young adult
group and two old adult groups. The young adults
had the lowest mean score, i.e., the highest per-
formance (M = –0.74, SD = 0.39), the old adults with
high executive performance were close to the mean
of the distribution (M = –0.02, SD = 0.42), and the
old adults with low executive performance showed
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
the highest mean score, i.e., the lowest perform-
ance (M = 1.36, SD = 0.72). All group differences
were significant.
Procedure
In the course of the first session, the participants were
given the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test and the
time-based prospective memory task. After a short
break of 5 minutes the TOL as well as the WCST were
administered.
In the course of the second session, participants
were first instructed in the complex or multitask pro-
spective paradigm, then had to develop their plan for
this task, and were next tested on the Stroop task as
well as on the event-based prospective memory task.
After a short break of 5 minutes, participants worked
on a distractor task. After completing the distractor
task, they were given the “participant information”
questionnaire as the cue for the multitask prospective
memory paradigm. After working for 6 minutes on the
complex prospective memory task, participants fin-
ished the participant-information questionnaire, re-
sponded to the questions asking what respondents
remembered from their original plans, and were de-
briefed by the experimenter.
TABLE 2
Age differences in executive functioning, and prospective memory measures
Young adults
(N = 40)
Executive measures
WCST 5.8 (0.9)
Stroop 10.3 (4.4)
Tower of London 3.5 (3.4)
Prospective memory measures
RBMT (% correct) 62.5
Lab. event-based 3.79 (0.5)
Lab. time-based 3.89 (0.4)
MTPM/performance 5.50 (0.8)
*
p < .05; **p < .01; p < .001.
***
PROSPECTIVE MEMORY PERFORMANCE 201
RESULTS
The first goal of our study was to assess and represent
a wide range of typical standard prospective memory
tasks as well as of frontal executive processes. Table 2
summarizes the results in these prospective and execu-
tive measures.
The results indicate increasing age differences
the more strongly frontal/executive functions are
hypothesized to be involved in performing the
prospective task. There are age differences for all
executive measures, for the laboratory event- and
time-based tasks, and marked age effects for the
MTPM/performance measure. There was no age ef-
fect in the single action event-based task from the
RBMT.
In addition, we intended to explore the extent to which
individual differences in executive functioning are
associated with individual differences in prospective
memory performance. Therefore, we conducted a
correlation analysis for young and old adults with the
prospective memory measures and the executive
functioning factor score. The results can be found in
Table 3.
The results indicate that only in older adults were
the laboratory event- and time-based prospective
memory tasks as well as the complex prospective
memory measure significantly correlated with executive
functioning. The RBMT measure was not correlated to
the executive factor score in either age group.
A second goal was to investigate if individual differ-
ences rather than age per se explain most of the age-
related variance in prospective memory tasks. This
would be suggested if, after controlling for individual
differences in nonexecutive functions, age-related
differences in prospective memory are eliminated once
the variance in performance due to executive functioning
is taken into account. Alternatively, there might be some
age-related component of prospective memory
Old adults
(N = 40) F-value η2
4.0 (1.8) 31.98*** .296
26.4 (14.0) 38.12*** .328
9.4 (5.7) 29.17*** .280
82.5 0.48 .007
3.15 (1.5) 6.35* .077
2.97 (2.1) 6.32* .081
2.83 (1.3) 127.18 *** .620
 202 MARTIN, KLIEGEL, McDANIEL

TABLE 3
Correlations between prospective memory measures and executive functioning
for young and old adults
Prospective memory task
RBMT Event-based Time-based MTPM/Performance
Young/Old Young/Old Young/Old Young/Old
Executive functioning
(factor score) .17 / .20 .14 / .40* .32+ / .32* .19 / .41**
+
p < .10; * p < .05; **p < .01.

performance on particular prospective memory tasks significantly contribute to the explanation of 77% of
that is not mediated by frontal/executive processes. In the variance. The results are also supported by four
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015

this case, age-related differences in prospective memory
will still exist after the variance in performance due to
frontal/executive processes is taken into account. We
conducted stepwise regression analyses with prospec-
tive memory performances as the dependent variables.
We entered the nonexecutive measures of education:
retrospective memory and health in the first step, the
frontal/executive functioning measures in the second
step, and chronological age in the third step. This al-
lowed us to examine whether executive functioning ex-
plains variance in prospective memory performance
above and beyond the influence of nonexecutive meas-
ures. In addition, our procedure allows us to examine if
the increase in explained variance (∆ R2) due to adding
age to the equation is significant. The results are dis-
played in Table 4.
The results indicate that, with the exception of the
RBMT, individual differences in executive functioning
explain a significant amount of variance of prospective
memory performance even after controlling for the
influence of nonexecutive measures. In contrast, adding
age to the regression does not lead to a significant
increase in explained variance in performance in the
laboratory event- and time-based prospective memory
tasks. However, regarding the complex prospective
memory task all three predictor groups—nonexecutive
measures, executive measures, and age—did
separate ANOVA analyses with the three groups of
young, old/high executive functioning, and old/low
executive functioning as independent variables and the
four prospective measures as the dependent variables.
There was no effect of group membership for the RBMT
task, F(2, 75) = 1.35, p > .25, or for the event-based task,
the time-based task, and the complex memory task, F(2,
75) = 4.75, p < .05; F(2, 75) = 4.30, p < .05; and F(2, 75) =
69.98, p > .001, respectively. Post-tests reveal no
significant mean differences in the RBMT task, similar
performances in the young and old/high executive
functioning vs. old/low executive functioning groups
in the event- and time-based task, and significant
differences between all three groups in the complex
prospective memory task.
DISCUSSION
A recent focus in prospective memory research has been
to consider the role of frontally mediated executive
functions for prospective remembering (Burgess, 2000b;
Burgess et al., 2000; Glisky, 1996; McDaniel et al., 1999).
However, the findings are disparate, with some studies
reporting relations between frontal processes and
prospective remembering (e.g., Burgess, 2000a; McDaniel
et al., 1999), whereas others do not necessarily implicate
frontal processes (Cockburn et al., 2000; Mi. Martin et al.,

TABLE 4
Regression summaries for four prospective memory performance measures as dependent variables

Prospective memory measures

RBMT Event-Based Time-Based MTPM/Performance
Predictors R 2
∆R 2
R 2
∆R 2
R 2
∆R 2
R2 ∆R2
Step 1
Nonexecutive measures .01 .01 .05 .05 .06 .06 .51*** .51***
Step 2
Executive functioning score .04 .03 .27 ** .22 ** .22 * .17 * .62*** .11 **
Step 3
Age .10 .06 .29 ** .02 .22 * .00 .77 *** .15***
*
p < .05; p < .01;
**
p < .001.
***

2000). Therefore, the first goal of our study was to exam-
ine and clarify the contribution of prefrontal executive
processes to performance in four standard prospective
memory tasks. These tasks were taken from the experi-
mental and clinical literature, and differ with respect to
the hypothesized involvement of executive processes of
planning, inhibition, and self-initiated monitoring. In par-
ticular, whereas the RBMT emphasizes the retention and
reinstantiation phases, the standard time-and event-
based tasks focus on the intention execution phase.
Finally, the complex prospective paradigm focuses on
both the intention formation and the intention execution
phases, thus theoretically making the largest demands on
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
executive processes.
On the part of the executive processes, mixed results
concerning the involvement of executive processes in
prospective memory performance reported in the
literature could have been caused by the use of a
particular measure focusing on a particular executive
function. Therefore, in our study, we used a broadly
defined construct of executive functioning by including
measures of planning, inhibition, monitoring, and
cognitive and response flexibility.
The results improve our understanding of the
neuropsychological processes involved in prospective
memory performance in two important ways. First, we
had expected increasing age differences in prospective
memory performance the more executive functions are
hypothesized to be involved, i.e., the more the intention
formation and intention execution phases of the
prospective task are emphasized. Based on the idea
that frontal functioning may show preferential decline
with age (e.g., Schretlen et al., 2000; West, 1996), we
suggested that age-related decline in prospective
memory will be observable in prospective tasks that
are shown to be significantly associated with frontal/
executive functioning. Therefore, we expected age-
related deficits in frontal/executive functions and in
prospective memory performance across the indicators
for each construct. The results clearly demonstrate
age-related differences in prospective memory
performance in three of the four indicators of
prospective memory performance. Only the
Remembering-a-Belonging subtest from the Rivermead
Behavioral Memory Test, a prospective memory test
taken from the assessment literature, did not reveal an
age-related performance difference. Similarly, there are
age-related differences in three indicators of frontal/
executive functioning.
One may conclude that there is a clear relationship
between the amount of involvement of frontal/executive
functions and the degree to which age effects occur.
This was supported by the results from ANOVAs
examining differences between the groups of young, old/
PROSPECTIVE MEMORY PERFORMANCE 203
high executive functioning, and old/low executive func-
tioning. Our finding may help to explain the disparate
findings from the prospective memory literature: Studies
finding no age effects might have used prospective
memory tasks focusing mainly on the retention and/or
reinstantiation phase of the tasks, thus requiring only a
minimal involvement of frontal/executive functions (such
as the Remembering-a-Belonging test), whereas studies
finding age differences might have used prospective
tasks with a larger involvement of frontal/executive
functions. For example, in studies where participants were
asked to send back postcards on specified dates and
were allowed to use the postcards as external reminders
(e.g., Patton & Meit, 1993; West, 1988), or in a number of
event-based tasks not requiring strategic monitoring of
the task environment (Einstein & McDaniel, 1990), there
were no age differences in performance (cf. McDaniel &
Einstein, 2000, for a theoretical discussion on the role of
strategic monitoring in prospective memory
performance). In the light of the present results, this is
not surprising, assuming that external cues in a familiar
environment minimize the need to plan to execute an
intention (one relies on the efficiency of the cue) or to
monitor a complex environment while trying to realize the
delayed intention, i.e., to engage in frontal/executive
processing. In contrast, studies in which participants had
to switch between a number of different prospective
actions or were engaged in demanding ongoing task
activities (e.g., Kliegel et al., 2000; Mi. Martin & Schumann-
Hengsteler, 2001; Maylor, 1996; Park et al., 1997) showed
age differences. Given a large number and high complexity
of task demands, this could be explained by assuming
that the execution of the delayed intentions in these
studies requires the use of frontal/executive functions
like planning, attention switching, or inhibition.
Second, although the near-ceiling performance of the
younger adults prevents us from making strong
statements about potential age differences, when the
correlations between executive functioning and
prospective memory performance are compared between
young and old adults, it seems that interindividual
differences in executive functioning are particularly
predictive of prospective memory performance in old age,
but not in young adults. This might be because executive
processes become increasingly important as the overall
level of cognitive processes declines in old age (e.g.,
Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997). Age differences in the
correlation between executive functioning and
prospective memory would, thus, become obvious in
prospective memory tasks making relatively few demands
for storage and cued retrieval of material, but, instead,
requiring planning, inhibition, and attention switching.
Therefore, a high level of prospective memory
performance in older adults compared to young adults
 204 MARTIN, KLIEGEL, McDANIEL
seems to depend more strongly on effective executive
processes. Another explanation could be that different
constellations of executive processes are involved in
prospective memory performance in young and old
adults. This has been suggested by Bisiacchi (1996) and
has recently been supported by fMRI studies showing
that different activations are present for younger and
older adults on identical working memory tasks (Mitchell,
Johnson, Raye, & D’Esposito, 2000; Rypma &
D’Esposito, 2001). However, results are precursory, and
only future research combining more difficult prospective
tasks to prevent ceiling performance in the younger
adults and a broader spectrum of executive functioning
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
measures might be able to examine the executive processes
involved in prospective memory performance in more
detail.
The second goal of our study was to examine if
individual differences in frontal/executive functions
rather than age per se explain most of the age-related
variance in prospective memory performance (e.g.,
Cherry & LeCompte, 1999; Kliegel et al., 2000). In other
words, we examined if, after controlling for the effects
of nonexecutive influences such as education, health,
or retrospective memory, significant portions of the age-
related differences in prospective memory performance
are eliminated once the variance in performance due to
frontal/executive process is taken into account, or if,
alternatively, some age deficits remain even after
controlling for nonexecutive skills and after factoring
out effects of frontal/executive processes.
The results demonstrate that a substantial proportion
of the variance in prospective memory performance can
be explained by differences in executive functioning
above and beyond the influence of nonexecutive
functions. This was at least true for the event-based task,
the time-based task, and the MTPM task. There was no
significant predictor for the performance in the simple
single-task RBMT measure. In addition, regarding the
most complex multitask prospective memory measure,
adding age to the regression equation further improved
the prediction of prospective memory performance. In
this paradigm only, nonexecutive measures did explain a
significant amount of the prospective performance at first.
This suggests that frontal/executive functioning is an
important predictor for prospective memory performance,
even after controlling for age differences in health,
education, and retrospective memory. Moreover, age did
not contribute significantly to the prediction of
prospective memory in two experimental paradigms
testing time-based and event-based prospective memory
performance after controlling for executive functioning.
Thus, for these tasks, there is no support for the
assumption that prospective memory signals age-related
decline that is differentiated from typical markers of age-
related frontal decline (Wecker et al., 2000). In contrast,
results from the most complex experimental paradigm
suggest that individual differences in nonexecutive
measures, individual differences in frontal/executive
functioning, and individual age differences all contrib-
ute to the prediction of prospective memory perform-
ance. Hence, in this paradigm, there is support for the
assumption that prospective memory signals age-related
decline that is differentiated from typical markers of age-
related frontal decline.
As an explanation, one might offer that in the complex
prospective memory task overall processing demands
are most diverse and at a relatively high level. Thus, a
number of different nonexecutive processes might be
involved, and their predictive power in explaining
performance becomes substantial. For example, this may
be true for acquired problem-solving strategies that
might support performance in the complex prospective
memory task. Still, to perform well in this prospective
memory task also requires the on-line processes of
planning, inhibition, and switching between the tasks.
Thus, executive processes play an important role in
predicting prospective memory performance even after
controlling for individual differences in nonexecutive
measures.
Our results indicate that even after controlling for
age-related declines in nonexecutive and executive
processes, there are still age-related differences in
processes involved in complex prospective memory
performance that have not been captured by our
instruments. There are at least two possible explanations
of this finding. First, there might be other nonexecutive
factors, e.g., motivational or emotional processes, that
are contributing to age-related differences in complex
prospective memory performance that have not been
examined in our study (cf. Kliegel et al., 2001, 2002b,
this issue). Second, there might be executive processes
other than the ones examined in our three standard
measures that are important for complex prospective
memory performance. As a consequence, our findings
suggest a need for measurement instruments capturing
the full range of nonexecutive and executive processes
potentially related to complex prospective memory
performance. Based on our data, reasoning about the
exact mechanisms responsible for the (age-related)
interplay of nonexecutive processes, frontal/executive
functioning, and prospective memory performance has
to remain speculative at this point. Further research
needs to disentangle the nonexecutive and frontal/
executive processes that might be differentially related
to different types of prospective tasks.
Overall, it seems clear that frontal/executive functions
are related to prospective memory performance across
a range of prospective paradigms. It also seems clear

that age differences in prospective memory perform-
ance partially depend on age-related individual differ-
ences in frontal/executive functions. Further research
involving complex prospective memory tasks is now
needed to examine the exact mechanisms responsible
for these effects (Ellis & Kvavilashvili, 2000).
REFERENCES
Bisiacchi, P. S. (1996). The neuropsychological approach in
the study of prospective memory. In M. A. Brandimonte,
G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective
memory: Theory and applications (pp. 297–317).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bisiacchi, P. S. (July 2000). Prospective memory in
Parkinson’s disease. Paper presented at the 1st
International Conference on Prospective Memory, Hatfield,
UK.Burgess, P.W. (July 1996). Prospective memory
following frontal lobe damage. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Conference on Memory, Abano-Padua, Italy.
Burgess, P. W. (July 2000a). The cognitive neuroscience of
prospective memory. Paper presented at the 1st International
Conference on Prospective Memory, Hatfield, UK.
Burgess, P. W. (2000b). Strategy application disorder: The
role of the frontal lobes in human multitasking.
Psychological Research, 63, 279–288.
Burgess, P. W., Veitch, E., de Lacy Costello, A., & Shallice,
T. (2000). The cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates
of multi-tasking. Neuropsychologia, 38, 848–863.
Cherry, K. E., & LeCompte, D. C. (1999). Age and
individual differences influence prospective memory.
Psychology and Aging, 14, 60–76.
Cockburn, J., Keene, J., & Hope, T. (July 2000). Are
prospective memory measures of the RBMT more vulnerable
to cognitive impairment than retrospective memory
measures? Paper presented at the 1st International
Conference on Prospective Memory, Hatfield, UK.
Cockburn, J., & Smith, P. T. (1988). Effects of age and
intelligence on everyday memory tasks. In M. M.
Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),
Practical aspects of memory: Current research and
issues. Vol. 2: Clinical and educational implications
(pp.132–136). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Cockburn, J., & Smith, P. T. (1991). The relative influence
of intelligence and age on everyday memory. Journal of
Gerontology, 46, P31–P36.
Cockburn, J., & Smith, P. T. (1994). Anxiety and errors of
prospective memory among elderly people. British
Journal of Psychology, 85, 273–282.
Dempster, F. N. (1992). The rise and fall of the inhibitory
mechanism: Toward a unified theory of cognitive development
and aging. Developmental Review, 12, 45–75.
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and
prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717–726.
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval
processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches
and some new empirical findings. In M. A. Brandimonte,
G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective
memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115–141).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Richardson, S. L., Guynn,
PROSPECTIVE MEMORY PERFORMANCE 205
M. J., & Cunfer, A. R. (1995). Aging and prospective
memory: Examining the influences of self-initiated retrieval
processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 21, 996–1007.
Einstein, G. O., Smith, R. E., McDaniel, M. A., & Shaw, P.
(1997). Aging and prospective memory: The influence of
increased task demands at encoding and retrieval.
Psychology and Aging, 12, 479–488.
Ellis, J. (1996). Prospective memory or the realization of
delayed intentions: A conceptual framework for research. In
M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel
(Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp.
1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Ellis, J. & Kvavilashvili, L. (2000). Prospective memory in
2000: Past, present, and future directions. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 14, S1–S9.
Evans, J., & Wilson, B. A. (1992). A memory group for individuals
with brain injury. Clinical Rehabilitation, 6, 75–81.
Glisky, E. L. (1996). Prospective memory and the frontal lobes.
In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel
(Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp.
249–266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Greve, K. W., Brooks, J., Crouch, J. A., & Williams, M. C.
(1997). Factorial structure of the Wisconsin Card Sorting
Test. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 283–285.
Guynn, M. J., McDaniel. M.A., & Einstein, G.O. (2001).
Remembering to perform actions: A different type of
memory? In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn,
J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M.A. Foley (Eds.),
Memory for action: A distinct form of episodic memory?
(pp. 25–48). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., &
Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hon, J., Huppert, F. A., Holland, A. J., & Watson, P. (1998).
The value of the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test
(Children’s Version) in an epidemiological study of older
adults with Down syndrome. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 37, 15–29.
Houx, P. J., Jolles, J., & Vreeling, F. W. (1993). Stroop
interference: Aging effects assessed with the Stroop color-
word test. Experimental Aging Research, 19, 209–224.
Huppert, F. A. & Beardsall, L. (1993). Prospective memory
impairment as an early indicator of dementia. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 805–821.
Huppert, F. A., Johnson, T., & Nickson, J. (2000). High
prevalence of prospective memory impairment in the elderly
and in early-stage dementia: Findings from a population-
based study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S63–S81.
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G.
O. (2001). Varying the importance of a prospective
memory task: Differential effects across time- and event-
based prospective memory. Memory, 9, 1–11.
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G.
O. (2002a). Complex prospective memory and executive
control of working memory: A process model.
Psychologische Beiträge, 44, 303–318.
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G.
O. (April 2002b). Prospective memory and aging: How
planning affects performance. Paper presented at the
Cognitive Aging Conference in Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G.
O. (in press). Why do we remember to perform intended
actions? Importance effects on performance in event-
based prospective memory. Memory.
 206 MARTIN, KLIEGEL, McDANIEL
Kliegel, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Plan
formation, retention, and execution in prospective memory:
A new approach and age-related effects. Memory and
Cognition, 28, 1041–1049.
Kopp, U., & Thöne, A. I. T. (July 2000). Role of executive
functions and memory processes in delayed intentions
after head injury. Paper presented at the 1st International
Conference on Prospective Memory, Hatfield, UK.
Kvavilashvili, L. (1987). Remembering intention as a distinct
form of memory. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 507–518.
Kvavilashvili, L., & Ellis, J. (1996). Varieties of intention:
Some distinctions and classifications. In M. Brandimonte,
G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective
memory: Theory and applications (pp. 23–51). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Martin, Ma. (1986). Ageing and patterns of change in everyday
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 04:46 23 March 2015
memory and cognition. Human Learning, 5, 63–74.
Martin, Mi., Kliegel, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G.
O. (July 2000). The neuropsychology of prospective
memory: The role of central executive functions. Paper
presented at the 1st International Conference on
Prospective Memory, Hatfield, UK.
Martin, Mi., & Schumann-Hengsteler, R. (2001). How task
demands influence time-based prospective memory
performance in young and older adults. International
Journal of Behavioural Development, 25, 386–391.
Maylor, E. A. (1993). Aging and forgetting in prospective
and retrospective memory tasks. Psychology and Aging,
8, 420–428.
Maylor, E. A. (1996). Does prospective memory decline with
age? In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel
(Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp.
173–198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
McDaniel, M.A., & Einstein, G. O. (1993). The importance
of cue familiarity and cue distinctiveness in prospective
memory. Memory, 1, 23–41.
McDaniel, M.A. & Einstein, G.O. (2000). Strategic and automatic
processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess
framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–S144.
McDaniel, M. A., Glisky, E. L., Rubin, S. R., Guynn, M. J.,
& Routhieaux, B. C. (1999). Prospective memory: A
neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology, 13, 103–110.
McDaniel, M.A., Robinson-Riegler, B., & Einstein, G. O. (1998).
Prospective remembering: Perceptually-driven or conceptually-
driven processes? Memory and Cognition, 26, 121–134.
Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., & D’Esposito,
M. (2000). FMRI evidence of age-related hippocampal
dysfunction in feature binding in working memory.
Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 197–206.
Morris, R. G., Evenden, J. L., Sahakian, B. J., & Robbins, T.
W. (1987). Computer-aided assessment of dementia:
Comparative studies of neuropsychological deficits in
Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinson’s disease. In S.
M. Stahl & S. D. Iversen (Eds.), Cognitive neurochemistry
(pp. 21–36). New York: Oxford University Press.
Park, D. C., Hertzog, C., Kidder, D. P., Morrell, R. W., &
Mayhorn, C. (1997). The effect of age on event-based
and time-based prospective memory. Psychology and
Aging, 12, 314–327.
Park, D. C., & Kidder, D. P. (1996). Prospective memory
and medication adherence. In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O.
Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory:
Theory and applications (pp. 369–390). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Patton, G. W. R. & Meit, M. (1993). Effect of aging on
prospective and incidental memory. Experimental Aging
Research, 19, 165–176.
Roediger, H. L. III (1996). Prospective memory and episodic
memory. In M. A. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A.
McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and
applications (pp. 149–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Rypma, B., & D’Esposito, M. (2001). Age-related changes
in brain-behaviour relationships: Evidence from event-
related functional fMRI studies. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 13, 235–256.
Schretlen, D., Pearlson, G. D., Anthony, J. C., Aylward, E.
H., Augustine, A. M., Davis, A., & Barta, P. (2000).
Elucidating the contributions of processing speed,
executive ability, and frontal lobe volume to normal age-
related differences in fluid intelligence. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 52–61.
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. W. (1991). Deficits in strategy
application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain,
114, 727–741.
Shimamura, A. P., Janowsky, J. S., & Squire, L. R. (1991).
What is the role of frontal lobe damage in memory
disorders? In H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A. L.
Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobe function and dysfunction (pp.
173–195). New York: Oxford University Press.
Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop
performance in healthy younger and older adults and in
individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 22, 461–479.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal
reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1987). The frontal lobes and
control of cognition and memory. In E. Perecman (Ed.),
The frontal lobes revisited (pp. 141–158). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Verhaeghen, P., & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analyses of
age-cognition relations in adulthood: Estimates of linear
and nonlinear age effects and structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 122, 231–249.
Ward, G., & Allport, A. (1997). Planning and problem-
solving using five-disc Tower of London task. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Experimental Psychology, 50A, 49–78.
Wecker, N. S., Kramer, J. H., Wisniewski, A., Delis, D. C.,
& Kaplan, E. (2000). Age effects on executive ability.
Neuropsychology, 14, 409–414.
West, R. L. (1988). Prospective memory and ageing. In M. M.
Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical
aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 2:
Clinical and Educational Implications (pp. 119–125).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
West, R. L. (1996). An application of prefrontal cortex
function theory to cognitive aging. Psychological Bulletin,
120, 272–292.
Wilson, B.A., Cockburn, J., & Baddeley, A.D. (1985). The
Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test. Titchfield, UK:
Thames Valley Test Co.
Wiseman, K. A., Ratcliff, G., Chase, S., Laporte, D. J.,
Robertson, D. U., & Colantonio, A. (2000). Does a test of
functional memory during the post-acute period predict long-
term outcome of traumatic brain injury? Brain and
Cognition, 44, 14–18.