Meta-prospective memory accuracy in older adults with and without suspected Mild Cognitive Impairment (sMCI).

This study examined if the relationship between generalized and task-specific appraisals of prospective memory (PM) and actual PM performance (i.e., meta-PM accuracy) differed between healthy and suspected Mild Cognitive Impairment (sMCI) older adults. Older adults recruited included 50 healthy and 31 sMCI participants from the community and an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Data collected consisted of self-reported appraisals and task-specific predictions/postdictions of PM performance, objective PM performance, and executive functioning (EF). The sMCI group had significantly lower scores on objective PM and EF measures related to simple and complex task-switching. Moreover, sMCI participants displayed lower task-specific meta-PM accuracy in the direction of overconfidence, but they displayed relatively equivalent generalized meta-PM accuracy when compared to the healthy group. Notably, the sMCI group's task-specific inaccuracies became non-significant in relation to the healthy group on the final long-term PM tasks after exposure to metacognitive reflection on the first two PM tasks. Despite lower scores on EF measures, EF performance did not explain task-specific meta-PM differences between groups beyond neurocognitive status. Based on these data, sMCI patients may be better assisted by metacognitive calibration strategies, EF protocols, and the implementation of general compensatory memory strategies as targets for early intervention and prevention of neurocognitive decline.

Meta-prospective memory accuracy in young adults with and without depressive symptoms.

Prospective memory (PM) is the ability to remember an intention in the future. Individuals with depression are candidates for PM failures, resulting in detrimental consequences, such as forgetting to take a medication or implement therapeutic techniques; inaccurate assessments of one's PM abilities can exacerbate these issues. The current study examined if appraisals about one's prospective memory (meta-PM) performance differs between healthy and depressed adults. Data were gathered from 137 adults and included self-reported depression, PM beliefs, objective PM, and assessment of executive functions (EFs). Participants were separated into depressed/healthy categories based on a self-report measure. There was a non-significant correlation between self-reported PM and objective PM for both depressed (r = .06, p = .61) and healthy (r = .08, p = .52) groups, suggesting both groups had inaccurate meta-PM. There were non-significant differences in meta-PM between these groups (Fisher's Z = -0.09, p = .93), but exploratory gender analyses revealed women's meta-PM was significantly less accurate than men's. Women had higher reports of depression and PM complaints compared to men. This study lends evidence that depression is not necessarily related to worse meta-PM accuracy, despite depression's association with memory complaints, and that women are at greater risk for inaccurate meta-PM.

Memory complaints inventory profiles: Differentiating neurocognitive impairment, depression, and non-credible performance.

The Memory Complaints Inventory (MCI) is a symptom validity measure designed to assess exaggerated memory complaints. The aim of current study was to develop memory complaint profiles on the MCI to distinguish between various neurocognitive disorders, depression, and non-credible performance. This study utilized MCI scores (N = 244) from a neuropsychology clinic to determine the presence of, and difference between, subjective memory complaints between a depression group, non-credible group, and subgroups of cognitive impairment (Alzheimer's Dementia, Vascular Dementia, and Mild Cognitive Impairment). Significant differences were found on MCI endorsement between cognitive impairment, depression, and non-credible groups. This pattern indicated fewer memory complaints for cognitive impairment groups when compared to depression and non-credible groups; the non-credible group had the highest MCI scores overall. ROC analyses revealed recommended clinical cutoff values with high specificity for distinguishing between the non-credible group and other groups. The findings provided further evidence for the MCI as a symptom validity measure, given its ability to differentiate between a non-credible group and clinical groups. Replication of the study's findings would result in reliable genuine subjective memory complaint profiles to provide additional diagnostic and prognostic specificity in neuropsychological practice.