Back

The Impact of Cognitive Load and Encoding Strategies on Prospective Memory in Children with ADHD: Performance and Processing Differences

Huang, J.; Lin, Z.; Wu, X.; Ye, Z.; Dong, Y.; Pan, Y.

2026-05-17 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.05.12.26353075 medRxiv
Show abstract

I ntroduction: Prospective memory (PM) deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) significantly impact academic and daily functioning. Through two experiments, this study investigated how cognitive load and encoding strategies modulate PM performance. Methods: Experiment 1 included 43 children (21 ADHD, 22 typically developing) who completed an n-back task under high and low cognitive load. Experiment 2 included 44 children with ADHD who were randomly assigned to either a standard encoding group or an implementation intention encoding group, also completing the n-back task under both load conditions. Results: Experiment 1 showed that children with ADHD had significantly lower PM accuracy than typically developing peers. Signal detection analysis revealed that this deficit stemmed from a more conservative response bias rather than impaired perceptual sensitivity. Unexpectedly, PM accuracy and perceptual sensitivity were higher under high cognitive load than low load for both groups. Experiment 2 demonstrated that implementation intention encoding significantly enhanced PM accuracy and perceptual sensitivity in children with ADHD, with stable effects across load conditions and no interference with ongoing task performance. Discussion: These findings indicate that PM deficits in children with ADHD reflect a conservative response strategy rather than an inability to detect target cues. Implementation intention encoding provides an effective, load-independent cognitive strategy for enhancing PM performance. These results offer novel insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying PM deficits in ADHD and provide evidence-based guidance for targeted interventions.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.