Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue?

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 860-867

  Harrison, Tyler L ^a   Einstein, Gilles O ^a  

^a FURMAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; HUMAN; MEMORY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ATTENTION; COGNITION; HUMANS; MEMORY; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 78149349561     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.7.860     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. BARGH, J. A., & CHARTRAND, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462-479.
2. BAUMEISTER, R. F., BRATSLAVSKY, E., MURAVEN, M., & TICE, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265.
3. COHEN, A.-L., JAUDAS, A., & GOLLWITZER, P. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149-156. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.149
4. EINSTEIN, G. O., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290.
5. EINSTEIN, G. O., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (2008). Prospective memory and metamemory: The skilled use of basic attentional and memory processes. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 48, pp. 145-173). San Diego: Academic Press.
6. EINSTEIN, G. O., & MCDANIEL, M. A. (2010). Prospective memory and what costs do not reveal about retrieval processes: A commentary on Smith, Hunt, McVay, and McConnell (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 1082-1088.
7. 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.
8. FAUL, F., ERDFELDER, E., LANG, A., & BUCHNER, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
9. FOSTER, E. R., MCDANIEL, M. A., REPOVŠ, G., & HERSHEY, T. (2009). Prospective memory in Parkinson disease across laboratory and self- reported everyday performance. Neuropsychology, 23, 347-358. doi:10.1037/a0014692
10. GILBERT, S. J., GOLLWITZER, P. M., COHEN, A.-L., OETTINGEN, G., & BURGESS, P. W. (2009). Separable brain systems supporting cued versus self-initiated realization of delayed intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 905-915. doi:10.1037/a0015535
11. GOSCHKE, T., & KUHL, J. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1211-1226.
12. HICKS, J. L., MARSH, R. L., & COOK, G. I. (2005). Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 430-444.
13. HUNT, R. R., & TOTH, J. P. (1990). Perceptual identification, fragment completion, and free recall: Concepts and data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 282-290.
14. KUCERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present- day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
15. KUHL, J. (1994). Motivation and volition. In G. d'Ydewalle, P Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2. The state of the art (pp. 311-340). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. LOFT, S., KEARNEY, R., & REMINGTON, R. (2008). Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? Memory & Cognition, 36, 139-148.
17. LOFT, S., & YEO, G. (2007). An investigation into the resource requirements of event-based prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 263-274.
18. MARSH, R. L., COOK, G. I., & HICKS, J. L. (2006). Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1636-1643.
19. MARSH, R., & HICKS, J. L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 336-349.
20. MARSH, R., HICKS, J. L., & COOK, G. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 68-75.
21. MARSH, R., HICKS, J. L., COOK, G., HANSEN, J., & PALLOS, A. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 861-870.
22. MCDANIEL, M. A., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127-S144.
23. MCDANIEL, M. A., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. MCDANIEL, M. A., GUYNN, M. J., EINSTEIN, G. O., & BRENEISER, J. (2004). Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 605-614.
25. MCNERNEY, M. W., & WEST, R. (2007). An imperfect relationship between prospective memory and the prospective interference effect. Memory & Cognition, 35, 275-282.
26. MOSCOVITCH, M. (1994). Memory and working with memory: Evaluation of a component process model and comparisons with other models. In D. L. Schacter & E. Tulving, Memory systems (pp. 269-310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. SCULLIN, M. K., MCDANIEL, M. A., & EINSTEIN, G. O. (2010). Control of cost in prospective memory: Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 190-203. doi:10.1037/a0017732
28. SCULLIN, M. K., MCDANIEL, M. A., SHELTON, J. T., & LEE, J. H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 736-749. doi:10.1037/a0018971
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. SMITH, R. E., HUNT, R. R., MCVAY, J. C., & MCCONNELL, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 734-746.
32. WEST, R., & CRAIK, F. (1999). Age-related decline in prospective memory: The role of cue accessibility and cue sensitivity. Psychology & Aging, 14, 264-272. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.14.2.264
33. WEST, R., KROMPINGER, J., & BOWRY, R. (2005). Disruptions of preparatory attention contribute to failures of prospective memory. Psy- chonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 502-507.
34. WHITTLESEA, B. W. A., & WILLIAMS, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy- attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 3-13. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.3