Memory for goals: an activation‐based model

Abstract

Goal-directed cognition is often discussed in terms of specialized memory structures like the "goal stack." The goal-activation model presented here analyzes goal-directed cognition in terms of the general memory constructs of activation and associative priming. The model embodies three predictive constraints: (1) the interference level, which arises from residual memory for old goals; (1) the strengthening constraint, which makes predictions about time to encode a new goal; and (3) the priming constraint, which makes predictions about the role of cues in retrieving pending goals. These constraints are formulated algebraically and tested through simulation of latency and error data from the Tower of Hanoi, a means-ends puzzle that depends heavily on suspension and resumption of goals. Implications of the model for understanding intention superiority, postcompletion error, and effects of task interruption are discussed.

Tuned for the future: Intentions are only accessible when a retrieval opportunity is near

“…In the present experiment, we cannot rule out the possibility that the demonstrated intention-superiority effect reflects strategic rehearsal processes (Altmann & Trafton, 2002). The memory task was announced 3 s before the first recognition trial started.…”

Resumption strategies for interrupted programming tasks

“…Abstracting from the underlying memory mechanics, Altmann and Trafton (2002) have proposed a general cognitive framework for modeling the effects of interruptions on tasks and associated problem state. Memory for goals is an activation-based approach for memory that builds on the ACT-R cognitive framework (Anderson et al 2004).…”

“…Recent research has demonstrated strong connection between the availability of environmental cues and reduced resumption costs (Altmann and Trafton 2002;Hodgetts and Jones 2006;Trafton et al 2005). Conversely, if the cue is removed or tampered with, this benefit is removed.…”

Can I Have Your Attention? Implications of the Research on Distractions and Multitasking for Reference Librarians

“…Research has proven that disrupted activities increase error rates (Altmann & Trafton, 2002;Bailey & Konstan, 2006;Cellier & Eyrolle, 1992;Jones et al, 1990). A number of studies have found that interrupted activities are correlated with task degradation and impaired cognitive performance (Adler & Benbunan-Fich, 2012;Banbury et al, 2001;Fox, Rosen, & Crawford, 2009;NavehBenjamin, Craik, Perretta, & Tonev, 2000;Ophir et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2012).…”