The role of metacognition in prospective memory: Anticipated task demands influence attention allocation strategies

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 931-943

  Rummel, Jan ^a   Meiser, Thorsten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attention allocation; Metacognition; Monitoring processes; Prospective memory

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; COGNITION; EXPECTATION; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NORMAL HUMAN; PILOT STUDY; PROSPECTIVE MEMORY; RESPONSE TIME; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84880426997     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: 10902376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Albinski R., Sedek G., Kliegel M. Differences in target monitoring in a prospective memory task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2012, 24:916-928.
2. Boywitt C.D., Rummel J. A diffusion model analysis of task interference effects in prospective memory. Memory & Cognition 2012, 40:19-27.
3. Brewer G.A., Knight J., Meeks J.T., Marsh R.L. On the role of imagery in event-based prospective memory. Consciousness & Cognition 2011, 20:901-907.
4. Castel A.D., McCabe D.P., Roediger H.L. Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: Evidence from judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:107-111.
5. Cohen A.-L., Jaudas A., Gollwitzer P.M. Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:149-156.
6. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1968, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
7. Dismukes R.K. Prospective memory in aviation and everyday settings. Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives 2008, 411-428. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York. M. Kliegel, M.A. McDaniel, G.O. Einstein (Eds.).
8. Dunlosky J., Ariel R. Self-regulated learning and the allocation of study time. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2011, 54:103-140.
9. Einstein G.O., McDaniel M.A. Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1990, 16:717-726.
10. Einstein G.O., McDaniel M.A. Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2005, 14:286-290.
11. Einstein G.O., McDaniel M.A. Prospective memory and metamemory: The skilled use of basic attentional and memory processes. The psychology of learning and motivation 2008, Vol. 48:145-173. Elsevier, San Diego.
12. Einstein G.O., McDaniel M.A. 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 and Cognition 2010, 36:1082-1088.
13. Einstein G.O., McDaniel M.A., Manzi M., Cochran B., Baker M. Prospective memory and aging: Forgetting intentions over short delays. Psychology and Aging 2000, 15:671-683.
14. Einstein G.O., McDaniel M.A., Thomas R., Mayfield S., Shank H., Morrisette N., et al. Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2005, 134:327-342.
15. Ellis J.A., Kvavilashvili L. Prospective memory in 2000: Past, present, and future directions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2000, 14:S1-S9.
16. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 2007, 39:175-191.
17. Förster J., Strack F. Subjective theories about encoding may influence recognition: Judgmental regulation in human memory. Social Cognition 1998, 16:78-92.
18. Gollwitzer P.M. Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist 1999, 54:493-503.
19. Graf P., Uttl B., Dixon R. Pro- and retrospective memory in adulthood. Lifespan memory development 2002, 257-282. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. P. Graf, N. Ohta (Eds.).
20. Harrison T., Einstein G.O. Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue?. Memory & Cognition 2010, 38:860-867.
21. Henry J.D., Rendell P.G., Phillips L.H., Dunlop L., Kliegel M. Prospective memory reminders: A laboratory investigation of initiation source and age effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, ifirst. 2012, 10.1080/17470218.17472011.17651091.
22. Hicks J.L., Marsh R.L., Cook G.I. Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 53:430-444.
23. Hines J.C., Touron D.R., Hertzog C. Metacognitive influences on study time allocation in an associative recognition task: An analysis of adult age differences. Psychology and Aging 2009, 24:462-475.
24. Kliegel M., Martin M., McDaniel M.A., Einstein G.O. Varying the importance of a prospective memory task: Differential effects across time- and event-based prospective memory. Memory 2001, 9:1-11.
25. Koriat A. Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1997, 126:349-370.
26. Koriat A., Bjork R.A. Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 2005, 31:187-194.
27. Koriat A., Bjork R.A., Sheffer L., Bar S.K. Predicting one's own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133:643-656.
28. Kvavilashvili L., Ellis J. Varieties of intentions: Some classifications and distinctions. Prospective memory: Theory and applications 1996, 23-52. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. M.A. Brandimonte, G.O. Einstein, M.A. McDaniel (Eds.).
29. Loft S., Kearney R., Remington R. Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation?. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:139-148.
30. Loft S., Yeo G. An investigation into the resource requirements of event-based prospective memory. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:263-274.
31. Marsh R.L., Cook G.I., Hicks J.L. Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34:1636-1643.
32. Marsh R.L., Hancock T.W., Hicks J.L. The demands of an ongoing activity influence the success of event-based prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2002, 9:604-610.
33. Marsh R.L., Hicks J.L., Cook G.I. 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 2005, 31:68-75.
34. Marsh R.L., Hicks J.L., Cook G.I. Task interference from prospective memories covaries with contextual associations of fulfilling them. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34:1037-1045.
35. Marsh R.L., Hicks J.L., Cook G.I., Hansen J.S., Pallos A.L. Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, 29:861-870.
36. Mazzoni G., Cornoldi C., Marchitelli G. Do memorability ratings affect study-time allocation. Memory & Cognition 1990, 18:196-204.
37. McBride D.M., Abney D.H. A comparison of transfer-appropriate and multi-process frameworks for prospective memory performance. Experimental Psychology 2012, 59:190-198.
38. McDaniel M.A., Einstein G.O. Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field 2007, Sage, Los Angeles.
39. McDaniel M.A., Scullin M.K. Implementation intention encoding does not automatize prospective memory responding. Memory & Cognition 2010, 38:221-232.
40. Meeks J.T., Hicks J.L., Marsh R.L. Metacognitive awareness of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness & Cognition 2007, 16:997-1004.
41. Meier B., Graf P. Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory test. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2000, 14:11-27.
42. Meier B., von Wartburg P., Matter S., Rothen N., Reber R. Performance predictions improve prospective memory and influence retrieval experience. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2011, 65:12-18.
43. Meiser T., Rummel J. False prospective memory responses as indications of automatic processes in the initiation of delayed intentions. Consciousness & Cognition 2012, 21:1509-1516.
44. Meiser T., Sattler C., von Hecker U. Metacognitive inferences in source memory judgements: The role of perceived differences in item recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:1015-1040.
45. Meiser T., Schult J.C. On the automatic nature of the task-appropriate processing effect in event-based prospective memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2008, 20:290-311.
46. Nelson T.O., Dunlosky J. When people's judgments of learning (Jols) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall - The delayed-Jol effect. Psychological Science 1991, 2:267-270.
47. Pereira A., Ellis J., Freeman J. Is prospective memory enhanced by cue-action semantic relatedness and enactment at encoding?. Consciousness & Cognition 2012, 21:1257-1266.
48. Ratcliff R. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 1993, 114:510-532.
49. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R. Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance 1985, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
50. Rummel J. Psychological distance to a prospective memory cue influences the probability of fulfilling a delayed intention. Memory 2010, 18:284-292.
51. Rummel J., Boywitt C.D., Meiser T. Assessing the validity of multinomial models using extraneous variables: An application to prospective memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2011, 64:2194-2210.
52. Rummel J., Einstein G.O., Rampey H. Implementation intention encoding in a prospective memory task enhances spontaneous retrieval of intentions. Memory 2012, 20:803-817.
53. Rummel J., Kuhlmann B.G., Touron D.R. Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness & Cognition 2013, 22:729-741.
54. Schnitzspahn K.M., Zeintl M., Jäger T., Kliegel M. Metacognition in prospective memory: Are performance predictions accurate?. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2011, 65:19-26.
55. Scullin M.K., McDaniel M.A., Einstein G.O. Control of cost in prospective memory: Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36:190-203.
56. Smith R.E. 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 2003, 29:347-361.
57. Smith R.E. What costs do reveal and moving beyond the cost debate: Reply to Einstein and McDaniel (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36:1089-1095.
58. Smith R.E., Hunt R.R., McVay J.C., McConnell M.D. The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:734-746.
59. Son L.K., Metcalfe J. Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2000, 26:204-221.
60. Stone M., Dismukes K., Remington R. Prospective memory in dynamic environments: Effects of load, delay, and phonological rehearsal. Memory 2001, 9:165-176.
61. Strack F., Förster J., Werth L. "Know thyself!" The role of idiosyncratic self-knowledge in recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:628-638.
62. Touron D.R., Oransky N., Meier M.E., Hines J.C. Metacognitive monitoring and strategic behaviour in working memory performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2010, 63:1533-1551.
63. West R., Krompinger J., Bowry R. Disruptions of preparatory attention contribute to failures of prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:502-507.