<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Haines SJ</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Randall SE</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Terrett G</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Busija L</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Tatangelo G</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>McLennan SN</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Rose NS</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Kliegel M</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Henry JD</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Rendell PG</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">Prior prospective memory (PM) research shows paradoxical findings-young adults outperform older adults in laboratory settings, but the reverse is found in naturalistic settings. Moreover, young-old outperform old-old adults in laboratory settings, but show no age differences in naturalistic settings. Here we highlight how time-based task characteristics have differed systematically between studies conducted in laboratory (time-interval cues) and naturalistic settings (time-of-day cues) and argue that this apparent paradox is a function of comparing disparate task types. In three experiments, we tested this hypothesis using analogous paradigms across settings, with event-based, time-of-day, and time-interval cued PM tasks. Experiment 1 compared young (n = 40) and older (n = 53) adults on a laboratory paradigm that measured PM tasks embedded in a virtual, daily life narrative; and on a conceptually parallel paradigm using a customized smartphone application (MEMO) in actual daily life. Results revealed that on the MEMO, older adults outperformed young adults on the time-of-day tasks but did not differ on the time-interval or event-based task. In contrast, older adults performed worse than young adults in the laboratory. Experiment 2 compared PM performance in young-old (n = 64) and old-old (n = 40) adults using the same paradigms. Young-old outperformed old-old adults in the laboratory; however, group differences were not evident in daily life. Experiment 3 compared young (n = 42) and older (n = 41) adults, and largely replicated the findings of Experiment 1 using a more demanding version of MEMO. These findings provide novel and important insights into the limiting conditions of the age-PM paradox and the need for a finer theoretical delineation of time-based tasks.</dc:description>
  <dc:identifier>https://sonar.ch/global/documents/46804</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104305</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/32497925</dc:relation>
  <dc:source>Cognition. - 2020</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">Cognitive aging</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Ecological validity</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">PM paradox</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">Prospective memory</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Time cues</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns6="xml" ns6:lang="en">Differences in time-based task characteristics help to explain the age-prospective memory paradox.</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
