The specificity of prospective memory costs

Memory

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 848-864

  Cohen, Anna Lisa ^a   Jaudas, Alexander ^b   Hirschhorn, Evan ^a   Sobin, Yoni ^a   Gollwitzer, Peter M ^b,c  

^a YESHIVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Intentions; Prospective memory; Stimulus specific; Task interference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; BEHAVIOR; EPISODIC MEMORY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ATTENTION; AWARENESS; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENTION; MALE; MEMORY, EPISODIC; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84871022198     PISSN: 09658211     EISSN: 14640686     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2012.710637     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Cohen, A-L., Jaudas, A. and Gollwitzer, P. M. 2008. Number of cues influence the cost of remembering to remember. Memory and Cognition, 36: 149-156.
2. Dewhurst, S. A., Holmes, S. J., Brandt, K. R. and Dean, G. M. 2006. Measuring the speed of the conscious components of recognition memory: Remembering is faster than knowing. Consciousness and Cognition, 15: 147-162.
3. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Richardson, S. L., Guynn, M. J. and Cunfer, A. R. 1995. Aging and prospective memory: Examining the influence of self-initiated retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21: 996-1007.
4. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H.Morrisette, N. 2005. Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134: 327-342.
5. Ellis, J. A. and Freeman, J. E. 2008. "Ten years on: Realising delayed intentions". In Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives, Edited by: Kliegel, M., McDaniel, M. A. and Einstein, G. O. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
6. Ellis, J. and Milne, A. 1996. Retrieval cue specificity and the realization of delayed intentions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(A): 862-887.
7. Grainger, J. and Jacobs, A. M. 1996. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: a multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103: 518-565.
8. Guynn, M. J. 2003. A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective memory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology, 38: 245-256.
9. Hicks, J. L., Marsh, R. L and Cook, G. I. 2005. Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions. Journal of Memory & Language, 53: 430-444.
10. Hunt, R. R. and Toth, J. E. 1990. Perceptual identification, fragment completion, and free recall: Concepts and data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16: 282-290.
11. Kliegel, M., McDaniel, M. A. and Einstein, G. O. 2008. Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
12. Knight, J. B., Ethridge, L. E., Marsh, R. L. and Clementz, B. A. 2010. Neural correlates of attentional and mnemonic processing in event-based prospective memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4: 1-13.
13. Kucera, H. and Francis, W.N. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English, Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
14. Kvavilashvili, L. and Fisher, L. 2007. Is time-based prospective remembering mediated by self-initiated rehearsals? Role of incidental cues, ongoing activity, age, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136: 112-132.
15. Loft, S., Kearney, R. and Remington, R. 2008. Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation?. Memory & Cognition, 36: 139-148.
16. Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I. and Hicks, J. L. 2006. Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition, 34: 1636-1643.
17. Marsh, R. L, Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., Hansen, J. S. and Pallos, A. L. 2003. Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29: 861-870.
18. Schneider, W. 1988. Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20: 206-217.
19. Scullin, M. K., Einstein, G. O. and McDaniel, M. A. 2009. Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories. Memory and Cognition, 37: 425-433.
20. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T. and 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.
21. 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.
22. Smith, R. E. and Bayen, U. J. 2004. A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30: 756-777.
23. Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C. and 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.