This article was downloaded by: [Matthew Grilli]
On: 13 December 2011, At: 06:53
Publisher: Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pnrh20
Imagine that: Self-imagination
improves prospective memory
in memory-impaired individuals
with neurological damage
Matthew D. Grilli
a
& Craig P. McFarland
a
a
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona, USA
Available online: 13 Dec 2011
To cite this article: Matthew D. Grilli & Craig P. McFarland (2011): Imagine that:
Self-imagination improves prospective memory in memory-impaired individuals with
neurological damage, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 21:6, 847-859
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2011.627263
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
Imagine that: Self-imagination improves prospective
memory in memory-impaired individuals with
neurological damage
Matthew D. Grilli and Craig P. McFarland
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Recent research has demonstrated that “self-imagination” – a mnemonic strategy
developed by Grilli and Glisky (2010) – enhances episodic memory in memoryimpaired
individuals with neurological damage more than traditional cognitive
strategies, including semantic elaboration and visual imagery. The present study
investigated the effect of self-imagination on prospective memory in individuals
with neurologically based memory deficits. In two separate sessions, 12 patients
with memory impairment took part in a computerised general knowledge test
that required them to answer multiple choice questions (i.e., ongoing task) and
press the “1” key when a target word appeared in a question (i.e., prospective
memory task). Prior to the start of the general knowledge test in each session,
participants attempted to encode the prospective memory task with one of two
strategies: self-imagination or rote-rehearsal. The findings revealed a “selfimagination
effect (SIE)” in prospective memory as self-imagining resulted
in better prospective memory performance than rote-rehearsal. These results
demonstrate that the mnemonic advantage of self-imagination extends to
prospective memory in memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage
and suggest that self-imagination has potential in cognitive rehabilitation.
Keywords: Self-referential processing; Implementation intentions; Memory
rehabilitation; Brain damage.
Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew D. Grilli, Department of Psychology,
University of Arizona, 1503 E. University Blvd, P.O. Box 210068, Tucson, Arizona 85721,
USA. E-mail: mdgrilli@email.arizona.edu
This research was supported by National Institute on Aging Grant AG14792. We would like
to thank Dr. Elizabeth Glisky for her helpful comments. The authors have no conflicts of interest.
A portion of this research was completed while Craig McFarland was at the VA Boston
Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION
2011, 21 (6), 847–859
# 2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/neurorehab http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2011.627263
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
INTRODUCTION
Emerging research suggests that “self-imagination” – the imagination of an
event from a personal perspective – may be a particularly successful mnemonic
strategy in memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage. In an
initial study, Grilli and Glisky (2010) demonstrated that self-imagination
enhanced recognition memory more than semantic elaboration in memoryimpaired
individuals with neurological damage and healthy individuals.
Additional findings from that study revealed that the advantage of selfimagination,
what Grilli and Glisky have called the “self-imagination effect
(SIE)”, was not affected by memory functioning as measured by the
general memory index (GMI) of the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-III;
Wechsler, 1997), although benefits of semantic elaboration were smaller in
individuals with poorer memory functioning. In a follow-up study, Grilli
and Glisky (2011) demonstrated that the SIE extended to a cued recall
memory task, was preserved after a relatively long delay (i.e., 30 minutes),
and, similar to recognition memory, was not limited by severity of memory
impairment in individuals with neurological damage.
Because memory performance following self-imagining has been shown to
be greater than that following elaborative semantic processing, visual imagery,
and other-person processing (Grilli & Glisky, 2010, 2011), Grilli and Glisky
have proposed that the advantage of self-imagining may be attributable to
mnemonic mechanisms related to the self, which may be preserved in individuals
with neurological damage (Klein, Cosmides, Costabile, & Mei, 2002;
Marquine, 2009; Rathbone, Moulin, & Conway, 2009). Indeed, patient
studies have revealed that aspects of self-knowledge remain intact in at least
some memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage (for a review,
see Klein, 2004). For instance, Cermak and O’Connor (1983) observed that
patient S.S. (a 50-year-old man who developed severe retrograde and anterograde
amnesia after he contracted herpes simplex encephalitis) based autobiographical
memory retrieval exclusively on a “personal pool of generalised
knowledge about himself” (p. 230). Similarly, Rathbone et al. (2009) recently
demonstrated that patient P.J.M., a 38-year-old woman with retrograde
amnesia, could retrieve facts about herself such as “I am an academic” and
“I am a mum”, despite a severely impaired ability to remember events from
which these facts were derived. Further evidence of spared self-knowledge
in memory-impaired individuals comes from a series of neuropsychological
case studies conducted by Klein and colleagues (for a review, see Klein &
Gangi, 2010). These studies have demonstrated that knowledge of one’s
own personality traits remains intact in individuals with severe memory
impairments of various aetiologies, including traumatic brain injury (Klein,
Loftus, & Kihlstrom, 1996). Based on these neuropsychological findings,
Klein and colleagues (2002) posited that specialised learning systems might
848 GRILLI AND McFARLAND
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
support the acquisition and retrieval of trait self-knowledge in memoryimpaired
individuals. Strategies that capitalise on preserved cognitive functions
to compensate for memory impairment have improved performance on
a variety of memory tasks in individuals with neurological damage (Baddeley
& Wilson, 1994; Evans et al., 2000; Glisky, 2004; Wilson & Kapur, 2008).
Therefore, because self-imagination may draw upon mnemonic mechanisms
that are intact in many brain-injured individuals, benefits of self-imagination
may extend to other types of memory that are often impaired by neurological
damage.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that prospective memory (remembering
to perform a task at a future point in time) is often impaired in individuals
with neurological damage (Cockburn, 1995; Schmitter-Edgecombe &
Wright, 2004; Shum, Valentine, & Cutmore, 1999). Impaired prospective
memory may be partly related to deficits in executive functions which are
thought to be important for “remembering to remember”, including monitoring
the environment for cues and interrupting ongoing activity to perform a
delayed intention. However, impaired retrospective memory function, particularly
in individuals with severe memory deficits, also may negatively
affect prospective memory performance. Indeed, if the content of a future
task is not sufficiently retained in memory, prospective memory failure is
likely. Although prospective memory performance among memory-impaired
individuals has been shown to benefit from rehabilitation programmes,
previous research indicates that these programmes can be relatively timeconsuming
and effort intensive (Kinsella, Ong, Storey, Wallace, & Hester,
2007; Kixmiller, 2002). Therefore, uncovering additional, more efficient
strategies for improving prospective memory in individuals with neurological
damage may have significant clinical implications.
One such efficient strategy that has been shown to improve prospective
memory among a variety of populations is known as “implementation intentions”
(Chasteen, Park, & Schwarz, 2001; Cohen & Gollwitzer, 2008; Liu &
Park, 2004). Implementation intentions rely upon the creation of an association
between a desired action and the future context in which that action
should be completed, and typically take the form of an “if, then” statement
(e.g., “If I see X, then I will do Y”). In several recent studies, the “if, then”
statement of an implementation intention has been augmented with a brief
period of imagining (Chasteen et al., 2001; McDaniel, Howard, & Butler,
2008; McFarland & Glisky, 2011; Meeks & Marsh, 2010). By encouraging
participants to imagine themselves completing a specific task in a future
context, this form of implementation intention is akin to self-imagining,
and has been shown to improve prospective memory. Importantly with
respect to the purposes of the current study, improved prospective memory
has been reported in two of the three studies that have included an
“imagery-only” condition (McFarland & Glisky, 2011; Meeks & Marsh,
SELF-IMAGINATION 849
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
2010), suggesting that the development of an “if, then” statement is not
necessary to improve prospective memory and that the use of imagery
alone can produce positive effects. Both of those studies included only
healthy young adults, however, and did not investigate the effects of
imagery among memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage.
The principal aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness
of self-imagining in improving prospective memory in memory-impaired
individuals with neurological damage. Therefore, we employed a self-imagining
technique that was designed to bind an intended future action with
self-relevant, situational cues that could later signal the appropriate time to
execute the retrieved intention. Based on previous research, self-imagining
was hypothesised to enhance prospective memory to a greater degree than
rote-rehearsal.
METHOD
Participants
Twelve individuals (7 male/5 female) with neurological damage of mixed
aetiology (9 with traumatic brain injury) participated in the study. Individuals
were recruited from the pool of participants in our laboratory and from brain
injury support groups in the greater Tucson, Arizona area. To be included in
the study, individuals had to have a memory impairment, which was defined
as at least a one standard deviation (i.e., 15 point) difference between estimated
pre-morbid IQ on the North American Adult Reading Test
(NAART; Spreen & Strauss, 1998) and memory functioning as determined
by General Memory Index (GMI) scores, and be at least 1 year posttrauma.
All individuals were at least 1.5 years post-injury at time of testing
and deemed to be cognitively stable at that time. Table 1 displays demographic
information and neuropsychological test performance for each
participant.
Neuropsychological functioning
Participants were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests designed
to measure intellectual function, i.e., NAART, and memory function, i.e.,
GMI from the Wechsler Memory Scale – III (WMS-III), and to construct a
composite measure of executive function. The composite measure of executive
function was based on five tests previously found to cluster together in
factor analysis (Glisky, Polster, & Routhieaux, 1995; Glisky, Rubin, &
Davidson, 2001) and hypothesised to reflect some aspects of executive function
associated with working memory (Glisky & Kong, 2008). The neuropsychological
tests of executive function included the Modified Wisconsin Card
850 GRILLI AND McFARLAND
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
TABLE 1
Descriptive characteristics and neuropsychological data for patients
Patient Aetiology Neurological damage Years since injury Gender Age IQ GMI EF Composite
1 TBI (MVA) rFL/rTL 9 Female 81 114 67 20.14
2 TBI (MVA) 16 Female 53 103 63 21.54
3 TBI (MVA) rFL/rTL/Diffuse 24 Male 44 125 110 0.76
4 TBI (MVA) rFL/Diffuse 29 Female 53 125 96 0.23
5 TBI (MVA) 32 Male 50 97 78 21.31
6 Anoxia 36 Female 54 98 79 21.42
7 TBI (MVA) FLs/rTL/mPL 18 Male 67 104 69 21.38
8 Aneurysm FLs 22 Male 46 127 81 1.51
9 TBI (Fall) 18 Male 42 107 70 21.39
10 TBI (MVA) FLs/rTL/Diffuse 11 Female 47 118 98 20.79
11 TBI (Fall) 23 Female 38 98 81 0.01
12 Tumor rTL/Hypothalamus 16 Female 18 101 57 20.73
Mean 21.17 49.42 110 79.08 20.52
Standard deviation 8.18 15.29 11.48 15.62 0.99
TBI ¼ traumatic brain injury; r ¼ right; l ¼ left; FL ¼ frontal lobe; TL ¼ temporal lobe; EF ¼ executive function; MVA ¼ motor vehicle accident.
SELF-IMAGINATION851
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
Sorting Test (WCST; Hart, Kwentus, Wade, & Taylor, 1988), Mental Control
(WMS-III), Mental Arithmetic from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale –
Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981), the FAS test of word fluency (Spreen &
Benton, 1977), and Digit Span Backwards (WMS-III). The composite score
for each individual represents the unweighted average of the z-scores for
the five tests. Z-scores were derived from published normative data for
each neuropsychological test. As shown in Table 1, a majority of the patients
had moderate to severe memory deficits and variable executive functioning.
Materials
The experimental paradigm included a computerised ongoing task that
required participants to complete multiple choice questions of general knowledge
(McDaniel, Glisky, Rubin, Guynn, & Routhieaux, 1999). Each question
was one or two sentences in length and had four answer choices, labelled A,
B, C, or D. Questions were randomly mixed for each participant and presented
visually on a Dell laptop computer with DMDX (Forster & Forster,
2003).
Procedure
Participants provided written informed consent prior to taking part in the
study, and all data were collected in compliance with regulations of the
University of Arizona Institutional Review Board. The study was divided
into two sessions administered one week apart. In each session, participants
completed a 42-minute version of the general knowledge test. Each question
in the general knowledge test appeared alone in the middle of the screen for 4
seconds. The answer choices then appeared below the question for a total of 8
seconds. Participants indicated their response by pressing one of four keys,
labelled A, B, C, or D. Feedback was provided following each trial (i.e.,
correct or incorrect), and the correct answer indicated if they had selected
incorrectly. Embedded within the trivia task were eight questions containing
either the target word “president” or the target word “state”. For a given participant,
the same target word appeared in all eight questions, and target
words were counterbalanced across sessions and encoding condition. Questions
containing the target word were separated by approximately 5-minute
intervals. Participants were introduced to the layout of the general knowledge
test and given four practice trials. After the practice trials, participants were
told that one of their goals was to answer each trivia question to the best of
their ability. In addition, participants were told, “We are also interested in
testing your ability to remember to perform a task in the future. Therefore,
please press the ‘1’ key each time the word ‘president’ (or ‘state’) appears
in a trivia question.”
852 GRILLI AND McFARLAND
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
Each session included a different encoding condition, which was administered
after participants were given the prospective memory instructions. In the
self-imagining condition, participants were instructed to imagine taking part
in the trivia game, seeing a question containing the target word, and immediately
pressing the “1” key. Participants were instructed to imagine the event
from their own personal perspective with as much detail as possible for 45
seconds. In the rote-rehearsal condition, participants were instructed to
rehearse aloud the following statement for 45 seconds: “Press the 1 key
when the word ‘president’ (or ‘state’) appears in a question.”
After completing the encoding condition, participants took part in a 12minute
distracter task, which involved studying and recalling a list of 16 concrete
nouns. The general knowledge test was started after the 12-minute
delay, and no reminder of the prospective memory task was provided.
Upon completing the general knowledge test, participants were asked to
describe the tasks that they were performing during the session (i.e., answering
multiple choice questions, pressing 1 if the target word appeared) to assess
whether they remembered the prospective memory task. The order of encoding
conditions was counterbalanced such that half the participants were administered
the self-imagining condition in session one and the rote-rehearsal
condition in session two, and half took part in the rote-rehearsal condition
in session one and the self-imagining condition in session two. Target
words (i.e., president or state) were counterbalanced across session and
encoding condition.
RESULTS
Effect of self-imagining on prospective memory
All participants mentioned the prospective memory task in post-experiment
debriefing. Figure 1 depicts the mean proportion of prospective memory
tasks successfully executed in the rote-rehearsal and self-imagination conditions.
A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
revealed a main effect of encoding condition, F(1, 11) ¼ 11.52, p , .01,
h2
¼ .51. The data show an SIE in prospective memory as self-imagining
enhanced prospective memory relative to rote-rehearsal in individuals with
neurological damage. The proportion of trivia questions answered correctly
in the self-imagining condition did not differ from the proportion of trivia
questions answered correctly in the rote-rehearsal condition, t(11) , 1; nor
did the total number of questions answered in the self-imagining condition
differ from the rote-rehearsal condition, t(11) ¼ 1.1, p ¼ .30. Although the
order of encoding conditions was counterbalanced, we ran an additional
analysis to investigate whether prospective memory performance was
SELF-IMAGINATION 853
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
affected by the order of the encoding conditions. This analysis revealed that
the order of encoding conditions did not affect prospective memory
performance, t(11) , 1.
Relation of self-imagining and SIE to neuropsychological
functioning
We ran exploratory correlational analyses to investigate whether prospective
memory performance following self-imagining was related to memory function
as measured by GMI scores or executive function as measured by executive
function composite scores. Pearson product-moment correlations
revealed that performance in the self-imagination condition was not significantly
correlated with memory function, r ¼ .34, p ¼ .28; or executive
function, r ¼ .20, p ¼ .53. We also investigated whether the advantage of
self-imagination relative to rote-rehearsal (i.e., the SIE) was related to neuropsychological
functioning. The SIE was calculated by subtracting performance
in the rote-rehearsal condition from performance in the self-imagination
condition. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed that the SIE was not
significantly correlated to memory function, r ¼ .10, p ¼ .76; or executive
function, r ¼ .09, p ¼ .78. Because 10 out of the 12 participants failed to
perform a single prospective memory task in the rote-rehearsal condition,
we were unable to analyse whether prospective memory performance following
rote-rehearsal was related to memory functioning or executive
functioning.
Figure 1. Proportion of prospective memory tasks successfully executed in the self-imagining and
rote-rehearsal conditions. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.
854 GRILLI AND McFARLAND
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
Although self-imagination enhanced prospective memory relative to roterehearsal,
five participants failed to perform a single prospective memory task
in the self-imagination condition. These patients, however, also failed to
perform a single prospective memory task in the rote-rehearsal condition,
and therefore the effect of self-imagining on prospective memory remains
unclear in these individuals. We ran several exploratory independentsamples
t-tests to investigate whether the individuals who were on the floor
in the self-imagination condition differed from the other participants in
regards to memory functioning as measured by GMI scores, executive functioning
as measured by executive functioning composite scores, age, or IQ.
None of the independent-sample t-tests approached significance, all ps . .18.
DISCUSSION
The principal aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential of selfimagining
for improving prospective memory in memory-impaired individuals
with neurological damage. To our knowledge, this is the first study to
demonstrate that a brief period of self-imagining improves prospective
memory in memory-impaired individuals. The results of the present study
were fairly robust. In fact, although only two participants completed a
single prospective memory task following rote-rehearsal, seven participants
completed a prospective memory task following self-imagining. Furthermore,
the magnitude of the effect appears not to be trivial. Indeed, participants who
benefited from self-imagining experienced on average a 66% advantage in
prospective memory performance with self-imagining relative to roterehearsal.
Note also that the trivia game in which the prospective memory
task was embedded occurred after a 12-minute filled delay without any
further reminders.
These results, although preliminary, suggest that it might be possible to
adapt self-imagining for a rehabilitation setting to help memory-impaired individuals
improve prospective memory in real world tasks. Indeed, it may be
possible to teach memory-impaired individuals to use self-imagining in
order to improve performance on critical tasks in their own home or vocational
setting. For example, in order to remember to take medication in the morning,
memory-impaired patients could be instructed to imagine themselves performing
the prospective memory task (i.e., taking medication) immediately after
engaging in an event that is part of their morning routine (e.g., drinking a
cup of coffee). Similarly, it may be possible to apply self-imagining to help
memory-impaired individuals associate important vocational tasks with
events that – in addition to signalling the appropriate moment to realise a
delayed intention – regularly occur in the workplace (e.g., clocking in,
lunch break, etc.). Moreover, the fact that the present study used a single
SELF-IMAGINATION 855
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
45-second encoding condition emphasises the potential ease with which
benefits of self-imagination may be instantiated in prospective memory.
Although the findings of the present study are promising, several questions
remain to be addressed. For instance, from a rehabilitation perspective,
additional research should investigate whether the benefits of self-imagination
extend beyond the laboratory, and if so, for how long. Furthermore,
the present study included only 12 participants, many of whom sustained
neurological damage as a result of traumatic brain injuries. Although this
sample size far exceeds that of the majority of previous research in this
area (for a review, see Shum, Levin, & Chan, 2011), additional studies
need to test the utility of self-imagining in populations with neurological
damage of different aetiologies. Although the results from the rote-rehearsal
condition suggest that prospective memory is impaired in our group of
memory-impaired patients, future research should include individuals based
on their performance on psychometric tests of prospective memory, e.g.,
Cambridge Prospective Memory Test (CAMPROMPT; Wilson et al., 2005)
or the Memory for Intentions Screening Test (MIST; Raskin, 2009). Furthermore,
although the present study counterbalanced the order of encoding conditions
and did not find an effect of encoding condition order on prospective
memory performance, a between-subjects design is a preferable method to
account for potential order effects.
Additional research also should attempt to uncover the mechanisms
responsible for the benefit of self-imagination in prospective memory.
Grilli and Glisky (2010, 2011) have suggested that the mnemonic advantage
of self-imagination may be partly attributable to mechanisms of the self,
which may be preserved in memory-impaired individuals with neurological
damage. Thus, one feasible explanation is that the SIE in prospective
memory is attributable to self-referential processing. The self-imagination
strategy employed in the present study incorporated several components
that may have involved the self. For example, self-imagining is believed to
involve the generation of thoughts and feelings that are self-relevant and
perhaps very memorable. Therefore, when self-imagining, participants may
have elicited thoughts and feelings that could have served later as highly
accessible retrieval cues for the prospective memory task. In addition,
motor simulation may have enhanced performance. Previous research has
demonstrated that self-performed tasks are better remembered than tasks
performed by others (Rosa & Gutchess, 2011). Therefore, engaging motor
imagery when imagining oneself executing the prospective memory task
(i.e., reaching forward and pressing the “1” key) may have contributed to
the advantage of self-imagination.
However, there are alternative explanations for the cognitive mechanisms
of the SIE. For example, the present study did not include a simple visual
imagery condition or a non-self-referential condition that required both
856 GRILLI AND McFARLAND
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
visual and verbal encoding. We therefore cannot rule out the possibility that
the SIE in prospective memory may be attributable to simple visual imagery
or a combination of visual and verbal encoding.
As in previous studies, performance following self-imagining was not
related to level of memory or executive function. However, given the small
sample size, future studies should investigate further the relation of the SIE
in prospective memory to neuropsychological functioning. Additional
studies also should investigate whether the effectiveness of self-imagination
in prospective memory may be enhanced further among brain-injured individuals.
A series of errorless learning studies conducted by Clare and colleagues
(Clare, Wilson, Breen, & Hodges, 1999; Clare et al., 2000; Clare, Wilson,
Carter, Hodges, & Adams, 2001) demonstrate that multiple study/test sessions
separated by increasing intervals (i.e., expanded rehearsal) results in
substantial benefits in memory-impaired individuals. Therefore, combining
self-imagination with expanded rehearsal may generate greater benefits
amongst memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage. Alternatively,
increasing the duration of the self-imagination session may prove beneficial
in some memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the present study demonstrate that imagining a future task
from a personal perspective enhances the ability to remember to perform
the task in memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage. Indeed,
these findings reveal that self-imagination improves performance among
memory-impaired individuals with neurological damage on a cognitively
demanding prospective memory task, much like those experienced in everyday
life. Furthermore, the findings of the present study suggest that selfimagination
holds potential for the rehabilitation of prospective memory.
REFERENCES
Baddeley, A., & Wilson, B. A. (1994). When implicit learning fails: Amnesia and the problem
of error elimination. Neuropsychologia, 32(1), 53–68.
Cermak, L. S., & O’Connor, M. (1983). The anterograde and retrograde retrieval ability of a
patient with amnesia due to encephalitis. Neuropsychologia, 21(3), 213–234.
Chasteen, A. L., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2001). Implementation intentions and facilitation
of prospective memory. Psychological Science, 12(6), 457–461.
Clare, L., Wilson, B. A., Breen, K., & Hodges, J. R. (1999). Errorless learning of name–face
assocations in early Alzheimer’s disease. Neurocase, 5(1), 37–46.
Clare, L., Wilson, B. A., Carter, G., Breen, K., Gosses, A., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). Intervening
with everyday memory problems in dementia of Alzheimer type: An errorless learning
approach. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(1), 132–146.
SELF-IMAGINATION 857
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
Clare, L., Wilson, B. A., Carter, G., Hodges, J. R., & Adams, M. (2001). Long-term maintenance
of treatment gains following a cognitive rehabilitation intervention in early dementia of Alzheimer
type: A single case study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 11(3–4), 477–494.
Cockburn, J. (1995). Task interruption in prospective memory: A frontal lobe function? Cortex,
31(1), 87–97.
Cohen, A. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). The cost of remembering to remember: Cognitive
load and implementation intentions influence ongoing task performance. In M. Kliegel,
M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective memory (pp. 367–390).
New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Evans, J. J., Wilson, B. A., Schuri, U., Andrade, J., Baddeley, A., Bruna, O., et al. (2000). A
comparison of “errorless” and “trial-and-error” learning methods for teaching individuals
with acquired memory deficits. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10(1), 67–101.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A window display program with millisecond
accuracy. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124.
Glisky, E. L. (2004). Disorders of memory. In J. Ponsford (Ed.), Cognitive and behavioral rehabilitation:
From neurobiology to clinical practice (pp. 100–128). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Glisky, E. L., & Kong, L. L. (2008). Do young and older adults rely on different processes in
source memory tasks? A neuropsychological study. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34(4), 809–822.
Glisky, E. L., Polster, M. R., & Routhieaux, B. C. (1995). Double dissociation between item and
source memory. Neuropsychology, 9, 229–235.
Glisky, E. L., Rubin, S. R., & Davidson, P. S. R. (2001). Source memory in older adults: An
encoding or retrieval problem? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
& Cognition, 27, 1131–1146.
Grilli, M. D., & Glisky, E. L. (2010). Self-imagination enhances recognition memory in
memory impaired individuals with neurological damage. Neuropsychology, 24(6), 698–710.
Grilli, M. D., & Glisky, E. L. (2011). The self-imagination effect: Benefits of a selfreferential
encoding strategy on cued recall in memory-impaired individuals with neurological
damage. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(5), 929–933.
Hart, R. P., Kwentus, J. A., Wade, J. B., & Taylor, J. R. (1988). Modified Wisconsin Cart
Sorting Test in elderly normal, depressed, and demented patients. Clinical Neuropsychologist,
2, 49–56.
Kinsella, G. J., Ong, B., Storey, E., Wallace, J., & Hester, R. (2007). Elaborated spaced-retrieval
and prospective memory in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation,
17(6), 688–706.
Kixmiller, J. S. (2002). Evaluation of prospective memory training for individuals with mild
Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Cognition, 49(2), 237.
Klein, S. B. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of knowing one’s self. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.),
The cognitive neurosciences III (3rd ed., pp. 1077–1089). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Costabile, K. A., & Mei, L. (2002). Is there something special about
the self? A neuropsycholigical case study. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 490–506.
Klein, S. B., & Gangi, C. E. (2010). The multiplicity of self: Neuropsychological evidence and
its implications for the self as a construct in psychological research. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1191, 1–15.
Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Self-knowledge of an amnesic patient:
Toward a neuropsychology of personality and social psychology. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 125(3), 250–260.
Liu, L. L., & Park, D. C. (2004). Aging and medical adherence: The use of automatic processes
to achieve effortful things. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 318–325.
858 GRILLI AND McFARLAND
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011
Marquine, M. J. (2009). Self-knowledge and self-referential processing in memory disorders:
Implications for neuropsychological rehabilitation. Dissertation Abstracts International:Section
B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69, 4432.
McDaniel, M. A., Glisky, E. L., Rubin, S. R., Guynn, M. J., & Routhieaux, B. C. (1999). Prospective
memory: A neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology, 13, 103–110.
McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Butler, K. M. (2008). Implementation intentions facilitate
prospective memory under high attention demands. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 716–724.
McFarland, C. P., & Glisky, E. L. (2011). Implementation intentions and imagery: Individual
and combined effects on prospective memory among young adults. Memory & Cognition.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0126-8.
Meeks, J. T., & Marsh, R. L. (2010). Implementation intentions about nonfocal event-based prospective
memory tasks. Psychological Research, 74, 82–89.
Raskin, S. (2009). Memory for intentions screening test: Psychometric properties and clinical
evidence. Brain Impairment, 10(1), 23–33.
Rathbone, C. J., Moulin, C. J. A., & Conway, M. A. (2009). Autobiographical memory and
amnesia: Using conceptual knowledge to ground the self. Neurocase, 15(5), 405–418.
Rosa, N. M., & Gutchess, A. H. (2011). Source memory for action in young and older adults:
Self vs. close or unknown others. Psychology and Aging, 26(3), 625–630.
Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Wright, M. J. (2004). Event-based prospective memory following
severe closed-head injury. Neuropsychology, 18, 353–361.
Shum, D., Levin, H., & Chan, R. C. K. (2011). Prospective memory in patients with closed head
injury: A review. Neuropsychologia, 49(8), 2156–2165.
Shum, D., Valentine, M., & Cutmore, T. (1999). Performance of individuals with severe longterm
traumatic brain injury on time-, event-, and activity-based prospective memory tasks.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21(1), 49–58.
Spreen, O., & Benton, A. L. (1977). Neurosensory Center Comprehensive Examination for
Aphasia (NCCEA). Victoria, Canada: University of Victoria Neuropsychology Laboratory.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Second edition.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised. New York, NY: Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Memory Scale – Third Edition: Administration and scoring
manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wilson, B. A., Emslie, H., Foley, J., Shiel, A., Watson, P., Hawkins, K., Groot, Y., & Evans, J.
(2005). The Cambridge Prospective Memory Test. London, UK: Harcourt.
Wilson, B. A., & Kapur, N. (2008). Memory rehabilitation for people with brain injury. In D. T.
Stuss, G. Winocur, & I. H. Robertson (Eds.), Cognitive neurorehabilitation: Evidence and
application (2nd ed., pp. 522–540). New York, NY: Cambridge Press.
Manuscript received June 2011
Revised manuscript received September 2011
SELF-IMAGINATION 859
Downloadedby[MatthewGrilli]at06:5313December2011