Commission errors in delay–execute prospective memory tasks

Abstract

Individuals frequently retrieve an intention, but the execution of the task needs to be delayed due to ongoing task demands - so-called delay-execute prospective memory (PM) tasks. We investigated commission errors in the delay-execute paradigm. Participants were told that a PM task is finished (PM task has been executed and is now finished for a final phase) or cancelled (PM task has been cancelled immediately after introduction). We observed commission errors and ongoing task performance in the final phase which included several irrelevant PM cues. In two experiments, we observed significantly more commission errors for cancelled compared to the finished intentions. In Experiment 2, commission errors were eliminated if the final phase required divided attention, regardless of PM task status. In addition, we observed significantly more PM cue interference on the ongoing task in the cancelled compared to the finished group, indicating that the PM task was retrieved in the cancelled group but not in the finished group. As retrieval and execution of the PM task were separated by a delay, the results indicate that commission errors are not always the result of a quick, spontaneous retrieval-execution sequence and may also occur when retrieval and execution are temporally separated.

Commission errors with forced response lag

“…However, the effect of the inhibition measure could not be replicated in a subsequent study using an implementation intention encoding condition (Bugg et al, 2013), and the correlation between inhibition score and commission errors is limited to older adults (Scullin et al, 2011). Furthermore, Schaper and Grundgeiger (2017) observed commission errors in younger adults in the delay-execute paradigm. In this paradigm, there is a delay of 45 s between the PM cue and the window of opportunity for the associated action, during which the participants continue to work on the ongoing task.…”

“…Once the intention is no longer relevant, either because the intention has been executed and declared finished, or it has been declared cancelled without being executed at all, after-effects may remain (Anderson & Einstein, 2017; Bugg, Scullin, & McDaniel, 2013; Walser, Fischer, & Goschke, 2012). Indeed, if the PM cue still occurred at a later point in time, researchers observed commission errors, that is, the erroneously repeated execution of the PM task following previously relevant cues (Bugg & Scullin, 2013; Schaper & Grundgeiger, 2017; Scullin, Bugg, & McDaniel, 2012). The dual mechanism account of commission errors (Bugg, Scullin, & Rauvola, 2016; Scullin & Bugg, 2013) states that commission errors are the result of spontaneous retrieval and subsequent failure to suppress the execution of the intention.…”

“…In the cancelled condition, the PM task is cancelled after the participants have been instructed and have been told that they should not react to the cue by pressing “6.” In the finished condition, the PM task is executed in a first phase (Phase 1); after this phase, the PM task is declared finished, and the participants are instructed to no longer react to the cue by pressing “6.” In Phase 2 of the experiment, the participants with cancelled and finished instructions are presented with an ongoing task, which includes multiple PM cues, which were no longer relevant (see Figure 1 for an overview of the cancelled condition). The difference between finished and cancelled PM instructions appears to be minor, but researchers consistently found that the proportion of participants who made a commission error with cancelled instructions was significantly larger than with finished instructions (Bugg & Scullin, 2013; Schaper & Grundgeiger, 2017). However, this is not always reflected in the after-effects in script paradigms (Marsh, Hicks, & Bryan, 1999).…”

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

“…The finding that commission error rates were nominally lower in the modified zero-target condition in Experiment 2 raises the possibility that another source is possible-participants may have pressed the Q key in the standard variant of this condition (e.g., Experiment 1a) because they thought the experimenter made an error upon being instructed not to perform the task "again." Considering past research that has demonstrated higher rates of commission errors in zero-target conditions that did not use phrasing such as the word again (see, e.g., Schaper & Grundgeiger, 2017, who told participants they could ignore the red screen in the finished phase because they were chosen for a condition that did not have to react to it) we also cannot rule out the possibility that the Experiment 2 commission error rate reflects sampling error. Thus, future studies should contrast the standard and modified versions head-to-head to determine the stability of this pattern.…”

“…This means participants cannot fulfill the intention. Although it may seem intuitive that a PM intention performed multiple times (as in the four-target condition) would become somewhat habitual and therefore be harder to deactivate than an intention that was never performed (as in the zero-target condition), the findings from these studies were quite the opposite (see also Schaper & Grundgeiger, 2017 ). For example, Bugg and Scullin ( 2013 ) found that participants in the four-target condition deactivated the intention and did not make a commission error (but see Pink & Dodson, 2013 ).…”