Recent studies suggest that working memory training may benefit older adults; however, findings regarding training and transfer effects are mixed. The current study aimed to investigate the effects of a process-based training intervention in a diverse sample of older adults and explored possible moderators of training and transfer effects. For that purpose, 80 older adults (65-95 years) were assigned either to a training group that worked on visuospatial, verbal, and executive working memory tasks for 9 sessions over 3 weeks or to a control group. Performance on trained and transfer tasks was assessed in all participants before and after the training period, as well as at a 9-month follow-up. Analyses revealed significant training effects in all 3 training tasks in trained participants relative to controls, as well as near transfer to a verbal working memory task and far transfer to a fluid intelligence task. Encouragingly, all training effects and the transfer effect to verbal working memory were stable at the 9-month follow-up session. Further analyses revealed that training gains were predicted by baseline performance in training tasks and (to a lesser degree) by age. Gains in transfer tasks were predicted by age and by the amount of improvement in the trained tasks. These findings suggest that cognitive plasticity is preserved over a large range of old age and that even a rather short training regime can lead to (partly specific) training and transfer effects. However, baseline performance, age, and training gains moderate the amount of plasticity.

Studies of age differences in event-based prospective memory indicate wide variation in the magnitude of age effects. One explanation derived from the multiprocess framework proposes that age differences depend on whether the cue to carry out a prospective intention is focal to ongoing task processing. A meta-analysis of 117 effect sizes from 4,709 participants provided evidence for this view, as age effects were greater when the prospective cue to the ongoing task was nonfocal compared with when it was focal. However, the results only support a weaker but not a stronger prediction of the multiprocess framework, as age impairments were reliably above zero for both types of retrieval cues.

The 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 performance 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.

Only few studies have addressed the issue of task importance in prospective memory. Most of them, but not all, have shown that perceived task importance does improve prospective memory performance. However, there is little understanding of (1) the conditions under which importance of the prospective memory task makes a difference in performance and (2) the mechanisms by which perceived task importance has an effect on prospective memory performance. The present study reports two experiments that manipulate task importance in a time-based and an event-based prospective memory paradigm. Results show that importance has an effect on the time-based but not on the event-based task. Further analyses of the performance in the cover tasks as well as the monitoring behaviour indicate that importance improves prospective memory to the degree the task requires the strategic allocation of attentional resources.