Literature DB >> 25844878

Slow down and remember to remember! A delay theory of prospective memory costs.

Andrew Heathcote1, Shayne Loft2, Roger W Remington3.   

Abstract

Event-based prospective memory (PM) requires a deferred action to be performed when a target event is encountered in the future. Individuals are often slower to perform a concurrent ongoing task when they have PM task requirements relative to performing the ongoing task in isolation. Theories differ in their detailed interpretations of this PM cost, but all assume that the PM task shares limited-capacity resources with the ongoing task. In what was interpreted as support of this core assumption, diffusion model fits reported by Boywitt and Rummel (2012) and Horn, Bayen, and Smith (2011) indicated that PM demands reduced the rate of accumulation of evidence about ongoing task choices. We revaluate this support by fitting both the diffusion and linear ballistic accumulator (Brown & Heathcote, 2008) models to these same data sets and 2 new data sets better suited to model fitting. There was little effect of PM demands on evidence accumulation rates, but PM demands consistently increased the evidence required for ongoing task response selection (response thresholds). A further analysis of data reported by Lourenço, White, and Maylor (2013) found that participants differentially adjusted their response thresholds to slow responses associated with stimuli potentially containing PM targets. These findings are consistent with a delay theory account of costs, which contends that individuals slow ongoing task responses to allow more time for PM response selection to occur. Our results call for a fundamental reevaluation of current capacity-sharing theories of PM cost that until now have dominated the PM literature. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25844878     DOI: 10.1037/a0038952

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rev        ISSN: 0033-295X            Impact factor:   8.934


  24 in total

Review 1.  From retrospective to prospective memory research: a framework for investigating the deactivation of intentions.

Authors:  Patrícia Matos; Pedro B Albuquerque
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2021-03-10

2.  The strategic control of prospective memory monitoring in response to complex and probabilistic contextual cues.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; B Hunter Ball
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-07

3.  Context cue focality influences strategic prospective memory monitoring.

Authors:  B Hunter Ball; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-08

4.  Aging and strategic prospective memory monitoring.

Authors:  B Hunter Ball; Y Peeta Li; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-04

5.  Improving prospective memory with contextual cueing.

Authors:  Vanessa K Bowden; Rebekah E Smith; Shayne Loft
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01-08

6.  Age-related changes in neural mechanisms of prospective memory.

Authors:  Bidhan Lamichhane; Mark A McDaniel; Emily R Waldum; Todd S Braver
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  A fresh pair of eyes on prospective memory monitoring.

Authors:  Jill Talley Shelton; Eddie A Christopher
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-08

8.  The importance of age-related differences in prospective memory: Evidence from diffusion model analyses.

Authors:  B Hunter Ball; Andrew J Aschenbrenner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

9.  Aging and the strategic use of context to control prospective memory monitoring.

Authors:  B Hunter Ball; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2018-05

10.  Prospective memory in context: Moving through a familiar space.

Authors:  Rebekah E Smith; R Reed Hunt; Amy E Murray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 3.051

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.