Investigating the output monitoring component of event-based prospective memory performance

Abstract

The goal of this study was to augment the standard event-based prospective memory paradigm with an output monitoring component. That component involves memory for past actions and, in the context of prospective memory, is largely responsible for repetition and omission errors. The modified paradigm also provides an index of what people believe to be true concerning their past prospective memory performance. More elaborate prospective responses decreased forgetting that an intention had been fulfilled, whereas contextual change increased forgetting. In Experiments 1-3, people often reported that they had fulfilled an intention on a previous occasion when they actually had not, but distinctive responses reduced that error in Experiment 4. Therefore, people's beliefs about their past performance can influence the incidence of repetition and omission errors in event-based prospective memory tasks.

Individual differences in event-based prospective memory: Evidence for multiple processes supporting cue detection

“…On the basis of the differences in the cue interference measure, a future endeavor will be to delineate individual differences in the retrieval processes that occur when participants notice an event-based cue. Studies in which output monitoring has been capitalized on would be a good starting point, because there difficulty of the retrieval component of prospective memory has been manipulated (e.g., Marsh, Hicks, Hancock, & Munsayac, 2002). In these studies, participants typically have to give a new response each time they detect a different event-based cue.…”

Task interference from event-based intentions

“…In the real world, such detection does not necessarily mean that the intention will be fulfilled. Rather, the cue can set in motion a whole other set of cognitive processes, including verification that this is the correct opportunity to respond, any additional coordination processes associated with temporarily suspending the current task at hand (see, e.g., Marsh, Hicks, Cook, Hansen, & Pallos, 2003), and, finally, a whole set of outputmonitoring processes that can be used to avoid making repetition and omission errors (e.g., Einstein, McDaniel, Smith, & Shaw, 1998;Marsh, Hicks, Cook, & Mayhorn, in press;Marsh, Hicks, Hancock, & Munsayac, 2002).…”

Limiting attentional resources influences performance and output monitoring of an event-based prospective memory task

“…The study of prospective memory investigates aspects of intention formation and intention completion (Marsh, Hicks, Hancock, & Munsayac, 2002). Examination of prospective memory by Einstein, McDaniel, Smith, and Shaw (1998) revealed that the performance of a prospective memory task can also depend on output monitoring.…”