Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to: Assessing prospective memory beyond experimental tasks

Nature Reviews Neurology volume 17, pages 459–460 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Two statements from my recent Review on prospective memory (PM) impairment (Henry, J. D. Prospective memory impairment in neurological disorders: implications and management. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00472-1 (2021))1 are highlighted as warranting discussion by Hainselin et al. (Hainselin, M., Gounden, Y. & Blondelle, G. Assessing prospective memory beyond experimental tasks. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00499-4 (2021))2, namely, “self-report measures often correlate weakly with objective assessments” and “single-item PM tests have lower reliability and sensitivity than clinical batteries.” Hainselin et al. argue that “recent literature reviews have highlighted the flaws of clinical batteries and emphasized the relevance of questionnaires and single-item PM tests.”

As I discussed1, self-report scales provide valuable insights into a patient’s own perspective, but, because they often correlate weakly with objective assessments, they should supplement rather than replace a formal behavioural assessment. This viewpoint aligns completely with the following conclusions from the review that Hainselin et al.2 themselves cite3: “this review found that self- and informant-report measures have relatively weak relationships with performance-based measures of PM. Some limited evidence of self-report and informant-report measures being able to detect PM impairments and monitor intervention outcomes is reported. As such, these measures are most suitable for the measurement of individuals’ concerns and beliefs about their PM ability and the impact of PM failures on their lives rather than measures of PM ability itself.”

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Henry, J. D. Prospective memory impairment in neurological disorders: implications and management. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00472-1 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hainselin, M., Gounden, Y. & Blondelle, G. Assessing prospective memory beyond experimental tasks. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00499-4 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sugden, N., Thomas, M. & Kiernan, M. A scoping review of the utility of self-report and informant-report prospective memory measures. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2021.1875851 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Phillips, L. H., Henry, J. D., & Martin, M. in Prospective Memory: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Applied Perspectives (eds Kliegel, M. et al.) 161–185 (Taylor & Francis Group, 2007).

  5. Henry, J. D., von Hippel, W., Molenberghs, P., Lee, T. & Sachdev, P. S. Clinical assessment of social cognitive function in neurological disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 12, 28–39 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, S. et al. The contribution of prospective memory performance to the neuropsychological assessment of mild cognitive impairment. Clin. Neuropsychol. 30, 131–149 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Julie D. Henry

Authors
  1. Julie D. Henry
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie D. Henry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henry, J.D. Reply to: Assessing prospective memory beyond experimental tasks. Nat Rev Neurol 17, 459–460 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00501-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00501-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing