Discrepancy processes in prospective memory retrieval

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 837-841

  Breneiser, Jennifer E ^a   McDaniel, Mark A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847656575     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194006     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. BALOTA, D. A., CORTESE, M. J., HUTCHISON, K. A., NEELY, J. H., NELSON, D., SIMPSON, G. B., & TREIMAN, R. (2002). The English lexicon project: A Web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. Washington University, St. Louis. Available at elexicon.wustl.edu.
2. CRAIK, F. I. M., GOVONI, R., NAVEH- BENJAMIN, M., & ANDERSON, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159-180.
3. EINSTEIN, G. O., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115-141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. EINSTEIN, G. O., MCDANIEL, M. A., THOMAS, R., MAYFIELD, S., SHANK, H., MORRISETTE, N., & BRENEISER, J. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327-342.
5. GUYNN, M. J., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (2005). Does target-event noticing in prospective memory demand resources? Manuscript submitted for publication.
6. KELEMEN, W. L., WEINBERG, W. B., OH, H. S. Y., SANFORD, E. K., & KAEOCHINDA, K. F. (2005). Improving the reliability of event-based laboratory tests of prospective memory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. LUND, K., & BURGESS, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203-208.
8. MÄNTYLÄ, T. (1996). Activating actions and interrupting intentions: Mechanisms of retrieval sensitization in prospective memory. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 93-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. MARSH, R. L., HICKS, J. L., & BINK, M. L. (1998). The activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 350-361.
10. MCDANIEL, M. A. (1995). Prospective memory: Progress and processes. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 33, pp. 191-221). San Diego: Academic Press.
11. MCDANIEL, M. A., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess frame-work. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127-S144.
12. MCDANIEL, M. A., GUYNN, M. J., EINSTEIN, G. O., & BRENEISER, J. E. (2004). Cue focused and automatic-associative processes in prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 605-614.
13. PAIVIO, A., YUILLE, J. C., & MADIGAN, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 76(1, Pt. 2), 1-25.
14. REESE, C. M., & CHERRY, K. E. (2002). The effects of age, ability, and memory monitoring on prospective memory task performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 9, 98-113.
15. SMITH, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 347-361.
16. SMITH, R. E., & BAYEN, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 756-777.
17. TURNER, M. L., & ENGLE, R. W. (1989). Is working memory task dependent? Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 127-154.
18. WHITTLESEA, B. W. A., & WILLIAMS, L. D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 3-13.
19. WHITTLESEA, B. W. A., & WILLIAMS, L. D. (2001b). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 14-33.