Literature DB >> 28383957

Accumulating evidence about what prospective memory costs actually reveal.

Luke Strickland1, Andrew Heathcote2, Roger W Remington3, Shayne Loft1.   

Abstract

Event-based prospective memory (PM) tasks require participants to substitute an atypical PM response for an ongoing task response when presented with PM targets. Responses to ongoing tasks are often slower with the addition of PM demands ("PM costs"). Prominent PM theories attribute costs to capacity-sharing between the ongoing and PM tasks, which reduces the rate of processing of the ongoing task. We modeled PM costs using the Linear Ballistic Accumulator and the Diffusion Decision Model in a lexical-decision task with nonfocal PM targets defined by semantic categories. Previous decision modeling, which attributed costs to changes in caution rather than rate of processing (Heathcote et al., 2015; Horn & Bayen, 2015), could be criticized on the grounds that the PM tasks included did not sufficiently promote capacity-sharing. Our semantic PM task was potentially more dependent on lexical decision resources than previous tasks (Marsh, Hicks, & Cook, 2005), yet costs were again driven by changes in threshold and not by changes in processing speed (drift rate). Costs resulting from a single target focal PM task were also driven by threshold changes. The increased thresholds underlying nonfocal and focal costs were larger for word trials than nonword trials. As PM targets were always words, this suggests that threshold increases are used to extend the time available for retrieval on PM trials. Under nonfocal conditions, but not focal conditions, the nonword threshold also increased. Thus, it seems that only nonfocal instructions cause a global threshold increase because of greater perceived task complexity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28383957     DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000400

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  8 in total

1.  Context cue focality influences strategic prospective memory monitoring.

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

2.  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

3.  Distinct monitoring strategies underlie costs and performance in prospective memory.

Authors:  Seth R Koslov; Landry S Bulls; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-04-06

4.  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

5.  Wait a second . . . Boundary conditions on delayed responding theories of prospective memory.

Authors:  B Hunter Ball; Anne Vogel; Derek M Ellis; Gene A Brewer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Cognitive Flexibility Improves Memory for Delayed Intentions.

Authors:  Seth R Koslov; Arjun Mukerji; Katlyn R Hedgpeth; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2019-11-07

7.  Dissociating sub-processes of aftereffects of completed intentions and costs to the ongoing task in prospective memory: A mouse-tracking approach.

Authors:  Marcel Kurtz; Stefan Scherbaum; Moritz Walser; Philipp Kanske; Marcus Möschl
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-02-25

8.  Flexible attention allocation dynamically impacts incidental encoding in prospective memory.

Authors:  Juan D Guevara Pinto; Megan H Papesh; Jason L Hicks
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-06-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.