Effects of intention load and background context on prospective remembering: An event‐related brain potential study

Abstract

Prospective remembering reflects the ability to realize intentions that must be delayed over some period of time. Recent evidence indicates that distinct modulations of the event-related brain potentials may be associated with the detection of a prospective memory cue (N300) and the recovery of an intention from memory (LPC, slow wave). The present experiments examined the degree to which these modulations were influenced by task manipulations that were expected to differentially influence cue detection and memory-related processes. Varying the number of intentions modulated the amplitude of a slow wave that may reflect memory-related processes. In contrast, varying the distinctiveness of the cues modulated the N300 and the early portion of the LPC indicating that this manipulation primarily influenced detection and categorization processes. These findings indicate that the N300, LPC and slow wave reflect functionally distinct processes associated with prospective memory.

Relationship between prospective memory and vigilance: Evidence from ERP

“…The results of the present study suggest that a dual task PM paradigm was more difficult and needed more cognitive resources than a vigilance task. Behavioral results of the present study were also not consistent with those reported by West et al [7]. While the oddball task (accuracy ranged from 0.94 to 1) was found by West et al to have a higher accuracy than the PM task (ranged from 0.89 to 0.92), the accuracy for PM (M = 0.84) and vigilance (M = 0.85) were found to be similar in the present study.…”

“…The PM paradigm of the study was developed based on the task used by West et al [7]. The stimuli of the PM task were two arrows between two bars presented in the centre of the screen.…”

“…First, a vigilance component is always involved in PM task [5,6]. Second, PM is similar to vigilance in that participants are usually required to monitor a continuous series of stimuli to detect the appearance of a low frequency target and to respond when a target is detected [7]. However, there are also some unique features in a PM task that distinguish it from a vigilance task.…”

“…However, there are also some unique features in a PM task that distinguish it from a vigilance task. For example, whereas the emphasis of a PM task is the ongoing activity, the detection of targets is the emphasis of a vigilance task [7,8]. The retrieval processes underlying PM and vigilance are also different.…”

“…West et al [7] compared the neural correlates of PM and vigilance, and found some differences in modulations evoked by PM and vigilance. For example, the ascending arm (400-600 ms) of parietal positivity evoked by PM and the late positive complex (LPC) evoked by the oddball task were different.…”