Aftereffects and deactivation of completed prospective memory intentions: A systematic review.

Abstract

Prospective memory, the ability to perform an intended action in the future, is an essential aspect of goal-directed behavior. Intentions influence our behavior and shape the way we process and interact with our environment. One important question for research on prospective memory and goal-directed behavior is whether this influence stops after the intention has been completed successfully. Are intention representations deactivated from memory after their completion, and if so, how? Here, we systematically review 20 years of research on intention deactivation and so-called aftereffects of completed intentions across different research fields to offer an integrative perspective on this topic. We first introduce the currently dominant accounts of aftereffects (inhibition vs. retrieval) and illustrate the paradigms, findings, and interpretations that these accounts developed from. We then review the evidence for each account based on the extant research in these paradigms. While early studies proposed a rapid deactivation or even inhibition of completed intentions, more recent studies mostly suggested that intentions continue to be retrieved even after completion and interfere with subsequent performance. Although these accounts of aftereffects seem mutually exclusive, we will show that they might be two sides of the same coin. That is, intention deactivation and the occurrence of aftereffects are modulated by a multitude of factors that either foster a rapid deactivation or lead to continued retrieval of completed intentions. Lastly, we outline future directions and novel experimental procedures for research on mechanisms and modulators of intention deactivation and discuss practical implications of our findings.

Meta-control: From psychology to computational neuroscience

“…The target of regulation corresponds to the subject of meta-control, i.e., the set of control processes being monitored and regulated. For instance, in the Stroop task, participants may invoke meta-control to regulate the amount of proactive engagement in a control-dependent behavior (Bustamante et al, 2021;Dey & Bugg, 2021;Lieder & Iwama, 2021), whereas in a prospective memory task, meta-control is needed to regulate the trade-off between the requirement to shield a current task-goal from interfering stimuli and the requirement to monitor the environment for cues signaling that one should switch to a different task (Goschke & Dreisbach, 2008;Möschl et al, 2020). However, meta-control also may regulate more complex control policies that determine exploratory versus exploitative behavior (Marković et al, 2021).…”

Dissociating sub-processes of aftereffects of completed intentions and costs to the ongoing task in prospective memory: A mouse-tracking approach

“…This deactivation of completed intentions is considered to be essential for goal-directed behavior, given that it enables focusing on new task demands and might prevent perseverative behavior (Goschke & Bolte, 2018;Mayr & Keele, 2000). Previous studies, however, showed that completed intentions can interfere with subsequent tasks in terms of aftereffects of completed intentions (Möschl et al, 2020). What are the mechanisms behind such aftereffects, and what causes us to slow down our ongoing-task performance while pursuing an intention in the first place?…”

“…Over the past years, PM research investigated the deactivation of completed intentions within event-based PM paradigms with no-longer-relevant PM cues (Anderson & Einstein, 2017 ; Bugg et al, 2013 ; Bugg et al, 2016 ; Möschl et al, 2020 ; Walser et al, 2012 ; Walser et al, 2017 ). In these paradigms, participants first perform an event-based PM task, in which they are instructed to perform a particular action (PM response, e.g., press spacebar) once they notice a specific PM cue that signals an opportunity to retrieve and execute the intended action (e.g., a specific symbol).…”

“…Notably, since both spontaneous retrieval processes could manifest in slowed responses and/or commission errors (e.g., Bugg & Streeper, 2019 ; Möschl et al, 2020 ), neither of these subprocesses can be distinguished directly by discrete measures like RT aftereffects or commission errors alone. Instead, however, they should become distinguishable in continuous behavioral measures that allow an investigation of the genesis of a reflexively triggered response over time.…”

Deactivation of prospective memory intentions: Examining the role of the stimulus–response link

“…A PM commission error is the act of erroneously repeating a PM intention when it is no longer relevant (e.g., erroneously taking medication that is no longer appropriate to take). Examining the underlying mechanisms that cause commission errors is crucial to understanding why they happen and how to prevent them from occurring (see Möschl et al, 2020 , for a recent review).…”