The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events.

Smith, Rebekah E.; Hunt, R. Reed; McVay, Jennifer C.; McConnell, Melissa D.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.734

Cited by 200 publications

(437 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

394

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The PAM theory (Smith, 2003;Smith & Bayen, 2004;Smith et al, 2007) argues that, during the interval in which the prospective memory task must be executed, "successful true [prospective memory] performance requires that preparatory attentional processes be engaged" (Smith et al, 2007, p. 742). Furthermore, the PAM theory argues that we do not have to be consciously aware of the engagement of preparatory (e.g., monitoring) processes, but nevertheless, these processes will consume attentional resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Monitoring theories such as the preparatory attentional and memory processes (PAM) theory argue that monitoring or other preparatory processes must be engaged prior to the occurrence of a target event for an intention to be successfully retrieved (Smith, 2003;Smith & Bayen, 2004;Smith, Hunt, McVay, & McConnell, 2007). These processes are assumed to be nonautomatic and to require attentional or working memory capacity and may be conscious or unconscious (Smith et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, if prospective memory retrieval is spontaneous and does not require monitoring for cues at the time the target event is encountered (and immediately preceding the target event), high prospective memory performance can be obtained in the absence of task interference (see the multiprocess theory; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). The results of research testing for task interference have been mixed (A.-L. Cohen, Jaudus, & Gollwitzer, 2008;Guynn, 2003;Marsh et al, 2003;Smith, 2003;Smith & Bayen, 2004;Smith et al, 2007), suggesting that the parameters of the ongoing and prospective memory tasks may determine whether prospective memory retrieval requires that attentional resources be allocated to the prospective memory task immediately prior to target events (but see Smith et al, 2007, for an alternative explanation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

McDaniel and Einstein (2007) argued that prospective memories can be retrieved through spontaneous retrieval processes stimulated by the presence of a target cue. To test this claim, we investigated whether presenting a prospective memory cue during a task that did not require an intention to be performed spontaneously triggered remembering of that intention. In two experiments, participants performed an image-rating task in which a prospective memory task (to press the "Q" key when a target word appeared) was embedded. Then, participants were told that their intention was finished or suspended. Finally, participants performed a lexical decision task in which each target (and a matched control) word appeared. RTs were slower to target words than to control words when the intention was suspended but not when it was finished. These results suggest that target cues associated with suspended intentions can spontaneously trigger remembering but that finished intentions are quickly deactivated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fixation-cross duration was varied to prevent participants from using the interstimulus interval for an attentional break (cf. Smith, Hunt, McVay, & McConnell, 2007). After participants responded to the probe stimulus, a new fixation cross was presented after a blank screen of 500 ms.…”

Section: Procedures and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Rummel

Kuhlmann

Touron

2013

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To investigate whether making performance predictions affects prospective memory (PM) processing, we asked one group of participants to predict their performance in a PM task embedded in an ongoing task and compared their performance with a control group that made no predictions. A third group gave not only PM predictions but also ongoing-task predictions. Exclusive PM predictions resulted in slower ongoing-task responding both in a nonfocal (Experiment 1) and in a focal (Experiment 2) PM task. Only in the nonfocal task was the additional slowing accompanied by improved PM performance. Even in the nonfocal task, however, was the correlation between ongoing-task speed and PM performance reduced after predictions, suggesting that the slowing was not completely functional for PM. Predictioninduced changes could be avoided by asking participants to additionally predict their performance in the ongoing task. In sum, the present findings substantiate a role of metamemory for attention-allocation strategies of PM.Keywords: prospective memory | metamemory | performance predictions | reactive effects | cognition | memory | psychology Article:

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated that response times to ongoing tasks on nontarget trials are slowed when individuals need to remember to perform PM tasks, an effect referred to as the costs to ongoing tasks (for a review, see Smith, Hunt, McVay, & McConnell, 2007). Costs have been interpreted as evidence for the allocation of some form of attentional capacity to the PM task and have formed the primary dependent measure for determining the resource requirements of PM (Einstein & McDaniel, 2010;Smith, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements

Loft

Humphreys

2012

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remembering to perform deferred actions when events are encountered in the future is referred to as eventbased prospective memory. Individuals can be slower to respond to ongoing tasks when they have prospective memory task requirements. These costs are interpreted as evidence for cognitive control processes allocated to the prospective memory task, but we know little about these processes. In the present article, the recognition of nontargets previously presented in an ongoing task with prospective memory task requirements provided evidence for the differential processing of individual ongoing task items. Participants performed a lexical decision task, where some participants were required to make an alternative prospective memory response either to a specific word (focal) or to exemplars of a category (nonfocal). Participants were slower to respond to the ongoing task in the nonfocal conditions than in the control condition (costs), regardless of whether or not prospective memory task importance was emphasized. Participants were also slower to respond to the ongoing task in the focal conditions than in the control condition, but only when prospective memory task importance was emphasized. This task was followed by a surprise recognition memory test in which nontarget words from the lexical decision task were intermixed with new words. Focal conditions, but not nonfocal conditions, showed better discrimination on the recognition task, as compared with the control condition. Participants in nonfocal conditions mapped the semantic features of the ongoing task letter strings onto the semantic features of their prospective memory category, and this elaboration in the processing of individual nontargets increased incidental learning and produced the recognition benefit.

show abstract

The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events.

Cited by 200 publications

References 40 publications

Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories

Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About