Table 2.
Overview of event-based prospective memory studies in autism
| Author, year | Participants | Task characteristics | Filler task/delay interval | Authors concluded PM impairment in ASD group (Hedges’g)a | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size (male per group) |
Mean age (range) per group | Ongoing task | # of PM trials | # of PM cues | Focality of PM cue | |||
| Altgassen et al. (2010) |
n
ASD = 19 (18 male) n NT = 19 (16 male) |
ASD 10.6 (7–20) NT 10.6 (7–20) |
Visuospatial working memory task | 5 trials | 1 | Non-focal | No | No (g = −0.25) |
| Brandimonte et al. (2011) |
n
ASD = 30 (21 male) n NT = 30 (21 male) |
ASD 8.25 (6–12) NT 8.33 (ns.) |
Categorisation of pictorial images | 8 trials | 2 | Focal | No | Yes (g = −0.96, post-hoc test, interaction not significant) |
| Jones et al. (2011) |
n
ASD = 94 (85 male) n NT = 55 (53 male) |
ASD 15.5 (14.7–16.8) NT 15.5 (ns.) |
Rivermead behavioural memory test | 3 trials | 1 per task | Focal | No | Yes (g = −0.41) |
| Altgassen et al. (2012)* |
n
ASD = 25 (20 male) n NT = 25 (19 male) |
ASD 21.8 (15–41) NT 21.8 (15–42) |
Dresden Breakfast task, Red Pencil Task | 2 trials for each task | 2 and 1 | Focal | Yes | Yes (Breakfast task: g = −0.70, red pencil task: g = −0.76) |
| Williams et al. (2013)** |
n
ASD = 21 (20 male) n NT = 21 (17 male) |
ASD 10.6 (7.8–13.8) NT 10.6 (8–12) |
Computer-based driving game simulation | 6 trials | 1 | Focal | No | No (g = 0.17) |
| Williams et al. (2014)** |
n
ASD = 17 (14 male) n NT = 17 (14 male) |
ASD 31.1 (19.1–54.6) NT 31.9 (17.7–58.8) |
Word memorisation task | 4 trials | 1 | Non-focal | No | No (g = 0.42) |
| Yi et al. (2014) |
n
ASD = 25 (19 male) n NT−MA = 28 (19 male) n NT−CA = 25 (22 male) |
ASD 7.66 (4.9–10.3) NTMA 5.8 (4.3–9.9) NTCA 7.68 (4.6–11.2) |
Naming of items on cards | 5 trials | 1 | Focal | No | Yes (ASD vs. NTMA: g = −0.59, ASD vs. NTCA: g = −0.39) |
| Altgassen and Koch (2014) |
n
ASD = 22 (20 male) n NT = 22 (20 male) |
ASD 25.8 (17–41) NT 25.6 (16–38) |
Word categorisation task plus inhibition task | 4 trials | 1 | Non-focal | Yes, ~10 min | No (g = −0.13) |
| Henry et al. (2014)* |
n
ASD = 30 (24 male) n NT = 30 (19 male) |
ASD 10.1 (8–12) NT 10 (8–12) |
Virtual week game 2 within-subject conditions (high vs. low task absorption) of 3 virtual days each |
12 trials across 3 virtual days, (2 regular/ 2 irregular per virtual day) | 4 | Not clear | No | No (g = −0.10) |
| Kretschmer et al. (2014)* |
n
ASD = 27 (9 male) n NT = 27 (2 male) |
ASD 35.6 (19–58) NT 39.9 (21–52) |
Virtual week game 2 between-subject encoding conditions (implementation intentions vs. standard) |
12 trials across 3 virtual days, (2 regular/2 irregular per virtual day) | 4 | Not clear | No | Yes (g = −0.55) |
| Sheppard et al. (2016) |
n
ASD−severe = 14 (13 male) n ASD−mild = 14 (14 male) n NT = 26 (16 male) |
ASDsevere 9.30 (6–14.5) ASDmild 10.05 (5.5–15.5) NT 5.1 (5.05–6.5) |
Interaction with a hand puppet (played by experimenter), playing a distractor game (‘Wac-a Mole’) | 2 trials PM clapping task 2 trials PM feeding task 1 trial PM reward task |
1 per task | Focal | Yes, between 1 and 5 min | Yes (NT vs. ASDsevere: g = −1.43) No (NT vs. ASDmild: g = −0.57) |
*Time- and event-based PM task within the same condition
**Time- and event-based PM task in separate conditions
aEffect sizes represent the standardised bias-corrected mean difference Hedges’g (calculation according to Lipsey and Wilson 2001); ns.: not specified