A diffusion model analysis of task interference effects in prospective memory

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 70-82

  Boywitt, C Dennis ^a   Rummel, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Diffusion model; Prospective memory; Task interference effect

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COLOR VISION; EPISODIC MEMORY; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

COLOR PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MEMORY, EPISODIC; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS;

EID: 84555206699     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0128-6     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Breneiser, J. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). Discrepancy processes in prospective memory retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 837-841. doi: 10. 3758/BF03194006.
2. Cohen, A.-L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149-156. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 36. 1. 149.
3. DeCarlo, L. T. (2003). Source monitoring and multivariate signal detection theory, with a model for selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 292-303. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-2496(03)00005-1.
4. Dutilh, G., Kryptos, A.-M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (in press). Task-related versus stimulus-specific practice: A diffusion model account. Experimental Psychology. doi: 10. 1027/1618-3169/a000111.
5. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290. doi: 10. 1111/j. 0963-7214. 2005. 00382. x.
6. 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. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 48 (pp. 145-173). San Diego: Elsevier.
7. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Manzi, M., Cochran, B., & Baker, M. (2000). Prospective memory and aging: Forgetting intentions over short delays. Psychology and Aging, 15, 671-683. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 15. 4. 671.
8. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., et al. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327-342. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 134. 3. 327.
9. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Williford, C. L., Pagan, J. L., & Dismukes, R. K. (2003). Forgetting of intentions in demanding situations is rapid. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 147-162. doi: 10. 1037/1076-898X. 9. 3. 147.
10. Erdfelder, E., Auer, T.-S., Hilbig, B. E., Aßfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 217, 108-124. doi: 10. 1027/0044-3409. 217. 3. 108.
11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193146.
12. Guynn, M. J. (2003). A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective momory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 245-256. doi: 10. 1080/00207590344000178.
13. Guynn, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Target preexposure eliminates the effect of distraction on event-based prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 484-488. doi: 10. 3758/BF03194094.
14. Harrison, T. L., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue? Memory & Cognition, 38, 860-867. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 38. 7. 860.
15. 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 and Language, 53, 430-444. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2005. 04. 001.
16. Horn, S. S., Bayen, U. J., & Smith, R. E. (2011). What can the diffusion model tell us about prospective memory? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 69-75. doi: 10. 1037/a0022808.
17. Kliegel, M., Jäger, T., & Phillips, L. H. (2008). Adult age differences in event-based prospective memory: A meta-analysis on the role of focal versus nonfocal cues. Psychology and Aging, 23, 203-208. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 23. 1. 203.
18. Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., & Hicks, J. L. (2006a). Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1636-1643. doi: 10. 3758/BF03195926.
19. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 68-75. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 31. 1. 68.
20. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2006b). Task interference from prospective memories covaries with contextual associations of fulfilling them. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1037-1045. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193250.
21. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., Hansen, J. S., & Pallos, A. L. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 861-870. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 29. 5. 861.
22. McBride, D. M., Beckner, J. K., & Abney, D. H. (in press). Effects of delay of prospective memory cues in an ongoing task on prospective memory task performance. Memory & Cognition. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-011-0105-0.
23. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127-S144. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 775.
24. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Los Angeles: Sage.
25. 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, and Cognition, 30, 605-614. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 30. 3. 605.
26. Meier, B., Zimmermann, T. D., & Perrig, W. J. (2006). Retrieval experience in prospective memory: Strategic monitoring and spontaneous retrieval. Memory, 14, 872-889. doi: 10. 1080/09658210600783774.
27. Meiser, T., & Schult, J. C. (2008). On the automatic nature of the task-appropriate processing effect in event-based prospective memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 290-311.
28. Ratcliff, R. (1978). Theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 85. 2. 59.
29. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 114. 3. 510.
30. Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111, 159-182. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 111. 1. 159.
31. Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., & Reeder, J. A. (2004). Sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing: A two-dimensional signal-detection model. Psychological Review, 111, 588-616. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 111. 3. 588.
32. Rummel, J., Boywitt, C. D., & Meiser, T. (in press). Assessing the validity of multinomial models using extraneous variables: An application to prospective memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi: 10. 1080/17470218. 2011. 586708.
33. 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, and Cognition, 36, 736-749. doi: 10. 1037/a0018971.
34. Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 756-777. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 30. 4. 756.
35. Spaniol, J., Madden, D. J., & Voss, A. (2006). A diffusion model analysis of adult age differences in episodic and semantic long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 101-117. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 32. 1. 101.
36. Thapar, A., Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2003). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging on letter discrimination. Psychology and Aging, 18, 415-429. doi: 10. 1037/0882-7974. 18. 3. 415.
37. Vandekerckhove, J., Tuerlinckx, F., & Lee, M. D. (2011). Hierarchical diffusion models for two-choice response times. Psychological Methods, 16, 44-62. doi: 10. 1037/a0021765.
38. Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1206-1220. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196893.
39. Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2007). Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 767-775. doi: 10. 3758/BF03192967.
40. Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2008). A fast numerical algorithm for the estimation of diffusion model parameters. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 1-9. doi: 10. 1016/j. jmp. 2007. 09. 005.
41. Voss, A., Voss, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2010). Separating response-execution bias from decision bias: Arguments for an additional parameter in Ratcliff's diffusion model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 539-555. doi: 10. 1348/000711009X477581.
42. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 641-671. doi: 10. 1080/09541440802205067.