A comparison of transfer-appropriate processing and multi-process frameworks for prospective memory performance

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 190-198

  McBride, Dawn M ^a   Abney, Drew H ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Multi process view; Prospective memory; Transfer appropriate processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPISODIC MEMORY; HUMAN; LEARNING; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME;

ATTENTION; HUMANS; MEMORY, EPISODIC; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY); YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84864757627     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000143     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 80 (3, Pt. 2).
2. Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 657-668.
3. Brewer, G. A. (2011). Analyzing response time distributions: Methodological and theoretical suggestions for prospective memory researchers. Journal of Psychology, 219, 117-124.
4. Cohen, A.-L., Kantner, J., Dixon, R. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2011). The intention interference effect: The difficulty of ignoring what you intend to do. Experimental Psychology, 58, 425-433.
5. Cousineau, D., Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2004). Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 742-756. (Pubitemid 40251425)
6. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290. (Pubitemid 44211038)
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. (Pubitemid 41323152)
8. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11. (Pubitemid 126416697)
9. Harrison, T. L., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue? Memory & Cognition, 38, 860-867.
10. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340-347.
11. Horn, S. S., Bayen, U. J., Smith, R. E., & Boywitt, C. D. (2011). The multinomial model of prospective memory: Validity of ongoing-task parameters. Experimental Psychology, 58, 247-255.
12. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13. 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. (Pubitemid 40145044)
14. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Hancock, T. W. (2000). On the interaction of ongoing cognitive activity and the nature of an event-based intention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S29-S41.
15. Maylor, E. A. (1996). Age-related impairment in an event-based prospective-memory task. Psychology and Aging, 11, 74-78. (Pubitemid 26133404)
16. Maylor, E. A., Darby, R. J., Logie, R. H., Della Sala, S., & Smith, G. (2002). Prospective memory across the lifespan. In P. Graf & N. Ohta (Eds.), Lifespan development of human memory (pp. 253-256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127-S144.
18. McGann, D., Ellis, J., & Milne, A. (2003). Conceptual and perceptual processing in prospective remembering. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 19-41. (Pubitemid 36133234)
19. Meier, B., & Graf, P. (2000). Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S11-S27.
20. 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. (Pubitemid 351225498)
21. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.
22. Scullin, M. K., Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories. Memory & Cognition, 37, 425-433.
23. 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, and Cognition, 29, 347-361. (Pubitemid 38156910)
24. 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, and Cognition, 33, 734-746.
25. Weldon, M. S., & Roediger, H. L. III. (1987). Altering retrieval demands reverses the picture superiority effect. Memory & Cognition, 15, 269-280.
26. Weldon, M. S., Roediger, H. L. III, & Challis, B. H. (1989). The properties of retrieval cues constrain the picture superiority effect. Memory & Cognition, 17, 95-105.
27. West, R., & Craik, F. I. M. (2001). Influences on the efficiency of prospective memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 16, 682-696. (Pubitemid 33144859)