Remembering to perform delayed intentions at a specific time point or period is referred to as time-based prospective memory (TBPM). The practice effect of TBPM is the phenomenon that TBPM performance improves via repeated PM training. In the present study, our main purpose was to explore the cognitive mechanism of the practice effect of TBPM, specifically the role of time estimation in the practice effect. We adopted a simple retrospective component of TBPM (pressing 1 key) in the present study, facilitating a closer look at the role of time estimation. In Experiment 1, the experimental group received 20 TBPM tasks training and some ongoing tasks training, while the control group only received some ongoing tasks training. We found that TBPM and time estimation abilities of experimental group were all better than those of control group. It proved that the practice effect of TBPM was closely related to the improvement of time estimation ability. In Experiment 2, we used time estimation training instead of TBPM training used in Experiment 1. The results of Experiment 2 were basically the same as those of Experiment 1. It further confirmed that time estimation played a key role in the practice effect of TBPM.

The practice effect of time‐based prospective memory (TBPM) refers to the phenomenon that TBPM task performance can be significantly improved by repetitive behavioural training. However, reminders are a common strategy for people to perform TBPM tasks in daily life. A large amount of evidence shows that reminders can improve TBPM performance when individuals pay less attention to time information. However, the present study was the first to explore whether external reminders might simultaneously impede the practice effect of TBPM. In this study, 81 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to control group (N = 27, Mage = 20.00, SDage = 1.04), reminder group (N = 26, Mage = 20.35, SDage = 1.70) and non‐reminder group (N = 28, Mage = 20.25, SDage = 1.17). In the training stage, the reminder group could receive effective external reminders, while the non‐reminder group could not. The results of the training stage revealed that compared with the non‐reminder group, the reminder group had fewer time monitoring times and better TBPM performance. In the testing stage, when reminders were removed from the reminder group, we found that compared with the control group without TBPM training, the TBPM performance of the reminder group failed to improve, while that of the non‐reminder group improved significantly. Meanwhile, the time estimation ability of the reminder group was not as improved as that of the non‐reminder group.

No abstract

Mixed prospective memory (MPM) needs to be executed when both external time and event cues appear. According to the clarity of time cues, MPM can be further divided into two types: time-point MPM and time-period MPM. There is no research on these two types of MPM. Whether existing theories of EBPM can explain its processing mechanisms is worth exploring. The current study was aimed at examining the differences in attentional allocation characteristics between these two types of MPM and EBPM under different difficult ongoing tasks. The results showed that the attention consumption of the two types of MPM groups was less than that of the EBPM group in the early and middle stages of high cognitive load, but there was no difference between the three groups in the later stage of the task. The attention distribution of time-point MPM and time-period MPM displayed dynamic changes: the time-point MPM only had attention consumption in the later stage, while the time-period MPM also existed in the early and middle stages. These results support dynamic multiprocess theory.

Field-independent and field-dependent individuals have different reference patterns and cognitive processing preferences. Field-independent individuals tend to rely on internal capabilities and use internal references to process information, while field-dependent individuals mainly rely on external references and focus on external information. Individuals with two cognitive styles have different attention patterns to perform time-based prospective memory (TBPM) tasks, with different effects on their TBPM performance. This study explored the influence of field-independent and field-dependent cognitive styles on TBPM. In Experiment 1, the attention load was manipulated by the difficulty of the ongoing task. The results showed that the field-independent individuals performed better than the field-dependent individuals only under a low-difficulty condition, indicating that the field-independent individuals had advantages in TBPM but were easily affected by the attention load. Experiment 2 further introduced external reminders to provide individuals with more external information and reduce individual attention consumption in internal time information processing to manipulate attention load. The results showed that external cues eliminated the difference between field-independent and field-dependent individuals in TBPM.