Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Rummel, Jan; Kuhlmann, Beatrice G.; Touron, Dayna R.

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.012

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with earlier studies of prospective memory tasks (Gilbert, 2015b;Meeks et al, 2007;Rummel et al, 2013;Schnitzspahn, Zeintl, et al, 2011), participants were underconfident in their self-judgements of accuracy using internal memory (advised group: t(54) = 3.6, p < .001, d = .98; unadvised group: t(52) = 4.3, p < .0001, d = 1.2).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…In the present study, participants were underconfident about their internal memory abilities (apart from the Easy, Positive group in Experiment 3) and over-used reminders. Underconfidence is the pattern generally found in laboratory studies of prospective memory (Gilbert, 2015b;Meeks et al, 2007;Rummel, Kuhlmann, & Touron, 2013;. However, in other situations individuals' metacognitive judgements (and hence cost/benefit decisions) may be biased in the opposite direction, potentially including naturalistic prospective memory tasks executed in everyday life.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Even in the absence of reminders, many naturalistic PM tasks will have higher chances of success than this. Previous studies suggest that underconfidence is particularly pronounced in more difficult tasks (Cherkaoui & Gilbert, 2017;Gilbert, 2015b; though see Rummel et al, 2013). Therefore it is possible that individuals would be underconfident in laboratory tasks but overconfident in naturalistic ones, which could lead to inadequate use of reminders in everyday life.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.

Gilbert

Bird

Carpenter

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals frequently choose between accomplishing goals using unaided cognitive abilities or offloading cognitive demands onto external tools and resources. For example, in order to remember an upcoming appointment one might rely on unaided memory or create a reminder by setting a smartphone alert. Setting a reminder incurs both a cost (the time/effort to set it up) and a benefit (increased likelihood of remembering). Here we investigate whether individuals weigh such costs/benefits optimally or show systematic biases. In 3 experiments, participants performed a memory task where they could choose between (a) earning a maximum reward for each remembered item, using unaided memory; or (b) earning a lesser amount per item, using external reminders to increase the number remembered. Participants were significantly biased toward using external reminders, even when they had a financial incentive to choose optimally. Individual differences in this bias were stable over time, and predicted by participants' erroneous metacognitive underconfidence in their memory abilities. Bias was eliminated, however, when participants received metacognitive advice about which strategy was likely to maximize performance. Furthermore, we found that metacognitive interventions (manipulation of feedback valence and practicetrial difficulty) yielded shifts in participants' reminder bias that were mediated by shifts in confidence. However, the bias could not be fully attributed to metacognitive error. We conclude that individuals have stable biases toward using external versus internal cognitive resources, which result at least in part from inaccurate metacognitive evaluations. Finding interventions to mitigate these biases can improve individuals' adaptive use of cognitive tools.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.

Gilbert

Bird

Carpenter

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The three main dimensions of executive functions (inhibition, shifting and updating; see Miyake et al, 2000) seems to be linked to PM performance (Schnitzspahn, Stahl, Zeintl, Kaller, & Kliegel, 2013). It is also applies to binding in working memory (Blondelle et al, 2015; Gonneaud et al, 2011; Hainselin et al, 2011), working memory (Cherry & LeCompte, 1999; West & Craik, 2001), processing speed (West & Craik, 2001; Zeintl, Kliegel, & Hofer, 2007), and metamemory (Meeks, Hicks, & Marsh, 2007; Meier, von Wartburg, Matter, Rothen, & Reber, 2011; Rummel, Kuhlmann, & Touron, 2013; Schnitzspahn, Zeintl, Jäger, & Kliegel, 2011; Smith, Souchay, & Moulin, 2011). …”

Section: Pm: Cognitive Processes and Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regularity effect in prospective memory during aging

Blondelle¹,

Hainselin²,

Gounden³

et al. 2016

Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRegularity effect can affect performance in prospective memory (PM), but little is known on the cognitive processes linked to this effect. Moreover, its impacts with regard to aging remain unknown. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine regularity effect in PM in a lifespan perspective, with a sample of young, intermediate, and older adults.Objective and designOur study examined the regularity effect in PM in three groups of participants: 28 young adults (18–30), 16 intermediate adults (40–55), and 25 older adults (65–80). The task, adapted from the Virtual Week, was designed to manipulate the regularity of the various activities of daily life that were to be recalled (regular repeated activities vs. irregular non-repeated activities). We examine the role of several cognitive functions including certain dimensions of executive functions (planning, inhibition, shifting, and binding), short-term memory, and retrospective episodic memory to identify those involved in PM, according to regularity and age.ResultsA mixed-design ANOVA showed a main effect of task regularity and an interaction between age and regularity: an age-related difference in PM performances was found for irregular activities (older < young), but not for regular activities. All participants recalled more regular activities than irregular ones with no age effect. It appeared that recalling of regular activities only involved planning for both intermediate and older adults, while recalling of irregular ones were linked to planning, inhibition, short-term memory, binding, and retrospective episodic memory.ConclusionTaken together, our data suggest that planning capacities seem to play a major role in remembering to perform intended actions with advancing age. Furthermore, the age-PM-paradox may be attenuated when the experimental design is adapted by implementing a familiar context through the use of activities of daily living. The clinical implications of regularity effect are discussed.

show abstract

“…Indeed, one has to consider a potential complication when assessing item-level JOLs for laboratory and naturalistic PM tasks that may be particularly relevant for PM research. In detail, in PM tasks, performance predictions could alter PM performance itself as they may enhance PM performance by repeatedly highlighting the intention after initial encoding for future retrieval (see, e.g., Meier, Wartburg, Matter, Rothen, & Reber, 2011 who showed that performance predictions may make the intention more accessible or Rummel, Kuhlmann & Touron, 2013, who found that PM performance increased in a prediction group compared to a control group without performance predictions).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions: young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory

Cauvin

Moulin

Souchay

et al. 2018

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated whether individuals can predict their future prospective memory (PM) performance in a lab-based task and in a naturalistic task. Metacognitive awareness was assessed by asking participants to give judgments-of-learning (JOLs) on an item-level for the prospective (that something has to be done) and retrospective (what to do) PM component. In addition, to explore whether giving predictions influences PM performance, we compared a control group (without predictions) to a prediction group. Results revealed that giving predictions did not change PM performance. Moreover, participants were underconfident in their PM performance in the lab-based task, while they were overconfident in the naturalistic task. In addition, item-level JOLs indicated that they were inaccurate in predicting what items they will recall or not, but only for the prospective component of the PM task. As for the retrospective component, they were equally accurate in both task settings. This study suggests a dissociation of metacognitive awareness for PM according to both task setting and processing component.

show abstract

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Cited by 34 publications

References 50 publications

Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.

Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.

Regularity effect in prospective memory during aging

Laboratory vs. naturalistic prospective memory task predictions: young adults are overconfident outside of the laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About