The failure of deactivating intentions: Aftereffects of completed intentions in the repeated prospective memory cue paradigm.

Walser, Moritz; Fischer, Rico; Goschke, Thomas

doi:10.1037/a0027000

Cited by 44 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants were able to switch off the monitoring process when instructed to discontinue performing the PM task. These results are in contrast to findings reported by Walser et al (2012) who showed that participants were unable to suppress intention-related thoughts when cues related to a previously completed intention appeared. Of course, this is likely due to their use of a focal PM cue which would make the lure more difficult to ignore.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Let it go: the flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a non-focal prospective memory task

Cohen

Gordon

Jaudas

et al. 2016

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remembering to perform a delayed intention is referred to as prospective memory (PM). In two studies, participants performed an Eriksen flanker task with an embedded PM task (they had to remember to press F1 if a pre-specified cue appeared). In study 1, participants performed a flanker task with either a concurrent PM task or a delayed PM task (instructed to carry out the intention in a later different task). In the delayed PM condition, the PM cues appeared unexpectedly early and we examined whether attention would be captured by the PM cue even though they were not relevant. Results revealed ongoing task costs solely in the concurrent PM condition but no significant task costs in the delayed PM condition showing that attention was not captured by the PM cue when it appeared in an irrelevant context. In study 2, we compared a concurrent PM condition (exactly as in Study 1) to a PM forget condition in which participants were told at a certain point during the flanker task that they no longer had to perform the PM task. Analyses revealed that participants were able to switch off attending to PM cues when instructed to forget the PM task. Results from both studies demonstrate the flexibility of monitoring as evidenced by the presence versus absence of costs in the ongoing flanker task implying that selective attention, like a lens, can be adjusted to attend or ignore, depending on intention relevance.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Let it go: the flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a non-focal prospective memory task

Cohen

Gordon

Jaudas

et al. 2016

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several recent experiments have demonstrated the lingering accessibility of intentions after intention completion (e.g., Penningroth, 2011;Walser, Fischer, & Goschke, 2012). In contrast, we have shown that accessibility before intention completion depends on the proximity of a perceived retrieval opportunity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

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

Schult

Steffens

2013

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intention-superiority effect describes faster reaction times for stimuli related to an intention than for more neutral material during the retention interval. Some authors have interpreted the effect in terms of a more persistent activation of intention-related material. However, typically participants are instructed to realize the intention immediately after completing the task in which reaction times are assessed (e.g., a recognition task) in order to yield the intention-superiority effect. Thus, the reaction-time task is also associated with a retrieval context. We tested whether the proximity of a retrieval opportunity affects the intentionsuperiority effect by manipulating whether or not a recognition task indicated a retrieval opportunity. We observed an intention-superiority effect only if the task itself was a meaningful cue for a near retrieval opportunity. This finding indicates that even short-term-delayed intentions flexibly become more or less accessible, depending on the proximity of a retrieval opportunity. We further demonstrated that the intention-superiority effect is not restricted to motor tasks,

show abstract

“…Meiran et al, (2015) described the example of a policeman accidentally shooting at an innocent civilian coming into their field of view while expecting a criminal as representing an unfortunate potential real-life consequence of the prepared-reflex strategy. A somewhat less dramatic example is when participants continue to execute a prospective-memory task even after it had been declared as no-longer relevant (Bugg and Scullin, 2013; Walser et al, 2012). …”

Section: Evidence That Ritl Is Implemented Via Prepared Reflexesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The task novelty paradox: Flexible control of inflexible neural pathways during rapid instructed task learning

Cole

Braver

Meiran

2017

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid instructed task learning (RITL) is one of the most remarkable human abilities, when considered from both computational and evolutionary perspectives. A key feature of RITL is that it enables new goals to be immediately pursued (and shared) following formation of task representations. Although RITL is a form of cognitive control that engenders immense flexibility, it also seems to produce inflexible activation of action plans in inappropriate contexts. We argue that this “prepared reflex” effect arises because RITL is implemented in the brain as a “flexible hub” mechanism, in which top-down influences from the frontoparietal control network reroute pathways among procedure-implementing brain areas (e.g., perceptual and motor areas). Specifically, we suggest that RITL-based proactive control – the preparatory biasing of task-relevant functional network routes – results in inflexible associative processing, demanding compensation in the form of increased reactive (in-the-moment) control. Thus, RITL produces a computational trade-off, in which the top-down influences of flexible hubs increase overall cognitive flexibility, but at the cost of temporally localized inflexibility (the prepared reflex effect).

show abstract

The failure of deactivating intentions: Aftereffects of completed intentions in the repeated prospective memory cue paradigm.

Cited by 44 publications

References 48 publications

Let it go: the flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a non-focal prospective memory task

Let it go: the flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a non-focal prospective memory task

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

The task novelty paradox: Flexible control of inflexible neural pathways during rapid instructed task learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About