Slow down and remember to remember! A delay theory of prospective memory costs

Psychological Review

Volumn 122, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 376-410

  Heathcote, Andrew ^a   Loft, Shayne ^b   Remington, Roger W ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Costs; Delay theory; Diffusion model; Linear ballistic accumulator model; Prospective memory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; EPISODIC MEMORY; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; HUMANS; MEMORY, EPISODIC; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84926373496     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: 19391471     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0038952     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Altgassen, M., Kliegel, M., & Martin, M. (2009). Event-based prospective memory in depression: The impact of cue focality. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1041-1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930802284158
2. Boywitt, C. D., & Rummel, J. (2012). A diffusion model analysis of task interference effects in prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 40, 70-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0128-6
3. Brandimonte, M. A., Ferrante, D., Feresin, C., & Delbello, R. (2001). Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes. Psicológica, 22, 97-113.
4. Breneiser, J. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). Discrepancy processes in prospective memory retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 837-841. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194006
5. Brewer, G. A., Knight, J. B., Marsh, R. L., & Unsworth, N. (2010). Individual differences in event-based prospective memory: Evidence for multiple processes supporting cue detection. Memory & Cognition, 38, 304-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.304
6. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2005). A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychological Review, 112, 117-128.
7. Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002
8. Brown, S., Steyvers, M., & Hemmer, P. (2007). Modeling experimentally induced strategy shifts. Psychological Science, 18, 40-45. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01846.x
9. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644
10. Chen, S., Zhou, R., Cui, H., & Chen, X. (2013). Deficits in cue detection underlie event-based prospective memory impairment in major depression: An eye tracking study. Psychiatry Research, 209, 453-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.01.015
11. Cohen, A.-L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.149
12. Cohen, A. L., Jaudas, A., Hirschhorn, E., Sobin, Y., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). The specificity of prospective memory costs. Memory, 20, 848-864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.710637
13. Costa, A., Carlesimo, G. A., & Caltagirone, C. (2012). Prospective memory functioning: A new area of investigation in the clinical neuropsychology and rehabilitation of Parkinson's disease and mild cognitive impairment. Review of evidence. Neurological Sciences, 33, 965-972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10072-012-0935-y
14. Crovitz, H. F., & Daniel, W. F. (1984). Measurements of everyday memory: Toward the prevention of forgetting. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 413-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03333861
15. Dennis, S. (1995). The Sydney Morning Herald word database. Noetica: Open forum. Retrieved from http://psy.uq.edu.au/CogPsych/Noetica
16. Dismukes, R. K. (2012). Prospective memory in workplace and everyday situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 215-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721412447621
17. Donkin, C., Brown, S. D.,&Heathcote, A. (2009). The overconstraint of response time models: Rethinking the scaling problem. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1129-1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.6.1129
18. Donkin, C., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2011). Drawing conclusions from choice response time models: A tutorial. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 140-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.10.001
19. Donkin, C., Brown, S., Heathcote, A., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2011). Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: different models for response time, same conclusions about psychological mechanisms? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 61-69.
20. Dutilh, G., Vandekerckhove, J., Tuerlinckx, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). A diffusion model decomposition of the practice effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1026-1036. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/16.6.1026
21. Eidels, A., Donkin, C., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2010). Converging measures of workload capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 763-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.763
22. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.717
23. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. Brandimonte,G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Ed.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115-141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
24. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x
25. 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, and Cognition, 36, 1082-1088. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0019184
26. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327
27. Foster, E. R., McDaniel, M. A., Repovš, G., & Hershey, T. (2009). Prospective memory in Parkinson disease across laboratory and selfreported everyday performance. Neuropsychology, 23, 347-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014692
28. Gawande, A. A., Studdert, D. M., Orav, E. J., Brennan, T. A., & Zinner, M. J. (2003). Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 229-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa021721
29. Gregory, B., Irwin, J. D., Faulks, I. J., & Chekaluk, E. (2014). Speeding in school zones: Violation or lapse in prospective memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 191-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000019
30. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000178
31. Harrison, T. L., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue? Memory & Cognition, 38, 860-867. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.860
32. Harrison, T. L., Mullet, H. G., Whiffen, K. N., Ousterhout, H., & Einstein, G. O. (2014). Prospective memory: Effects of divided attention on spontaneous retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42, 212-224. http://dx.doi .org/10.3758/s13421-013-0357-y
33. Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 185-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212979
34. Heathcote, A., Brown, S. D., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2002). Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 394-401.
35. Heathcote, A., & Brown, S. D. (2004). Reply to Speckman and Rouder: A theoretical basis for QML. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 577.
36. Heathcote, A., & Hayes, B. (2012). Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: Different models for response time with different conclusions about psychological mechanisms? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 125-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028189
37. Heathcote, A., & Love, J. (2012). Linear deterministic accumulator models of simple choice. Frontiers in Cognitive Science, 3, 292. http://dx.doi .org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00292
38. Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., & Marsh, R. L. (2005). Detecting event-based prospective memory cues occurring within and outside the focus of attention. The American Journal of Psychology, 118, 1-11.
39. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.04.001
40. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022808
41. Ihle, A., Hering, A., Mahy, C. E. V., Bisiacchi, P. S., & Kliegel, M. (2013). Adult age differences, response management, and cue focality in eventbased prospective memory: A meta-analysis on the role of task order specificity. Psychology and Aging, 28, 714-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033653
42. Kamienkowski, J. E., Pashler, H., Dehaene, S., & Sigman, M. (2011). Effects of practice on task architecture: Combined evidence from interference experiments and random-walk models of decision making. Cognition, 119, 81-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.010
43. 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. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.1.203
44. Kliegel, M., & Martin, M. (2003). Prospective memory research: Why is it relevant? International Journal of Psychology, 38, 193-194. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000114
45. Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2001). Varying the importance of a prospective memory task: Differential effects across time- and event-based prospective memory. Memory, 9, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210042000003
46. Kliegel, M., Martin, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2004). Importance effects on performance in event-based prospective memory tasks. Memory, 12, 553-561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000099
47. Kliegel, M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2008). Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Lerche, V., & Voss, A. (2013, August). How many trials are needed for a robust diffusion model analysis? A comparison of different optimization criteria for parameter estimation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Potsdam, Germany.
49. Li, Y. R., Loft, S., Weinborn, M., & Maybery, M. T. (2014). Event-based prospective memory deficits in individuals with high depressive symptomatology: Problems controlling attentional resources? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 36, 577-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.918090
50. Loft, S. (2014). Applying psychological science to examine prospective memory in simulated air traffic control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 326-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414545214
51. Loft, S., Finnerty, D., & Remington, R. W. (2011). Using spatial context to support prospective memory in simulated air traffic control. Human Factors, 53, 662-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720811421783
52. Loft, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2012). Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1142-1147. http://dx .doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0303-1
53. Loft, S., Humphreys, M. S., & Whitney, S. J. (2008). Control of access to memory: The use of task interference as a behavioral probe. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 465-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml .2007.04.002
54. Loft, S., Kearney, R., & Remington, R. (2008). Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? Memory & Cognition, 36, 139-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.139
55. Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2010). Prospective memory and task interference in a continuous monitoring dynamic display task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 145-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018900
56. Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Wait a second: Brief delays in responding reduce focality effects in event-based prospective memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1432-1447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.750677
57. Loft, S., Smith, R. E., & Bhaskara, A. (2011). Prospective memory in an air traffic control simulation: External aids that signal when to act. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 60-70. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0022845
58. Loft, S., Smith, R. E., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Minimizing the disruptive effects of prospective memory in simulated air traffic control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 254-265. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0034141
59. Loft, S., & Yeo, G. (2007). An investigation into the resource requirements of event-based prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 263-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193447
60. Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.295
61. Logan, G. D., Van Zandt, T., Verbruggen, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: General and special theories of an act of control. Psychological Review, 121, 66-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035230
62. Lourenço, J. S., White, K., & Maylor, E. A. (2013). Target context specification can reduce costs in nonfocal prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1757-1764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033702
63. Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 336-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.336
64. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.68
65. 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 Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 861-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.861
66. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.605
67. McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T., Breneiser, J. E., Moynan, S., & Balota, D. A. (2011). Focal and nonfocal prospective memory performance in very mild dementia: A signature decline. Neuropsychology, 25, 387-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021682
68. McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Drifting from slow to "D'oh!": Working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 525-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025896
69. Meeks, J., Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2007). Metacognitive awareness of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 997-1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.09.005
70. Meeks, J. T., & Marsh, R. L. (2010). Implementation intentions about nonfocal event-based prospective memory tasks. Psychological Research, 74, 82-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0223-x
71. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61-64.
72. Mulder, M. J., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ratcliff, R., Boekel, W., & Forstmann, B. U. (2012). Bias in the brain: A diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 2335-2343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4156-11.2012
73. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (1997). Applying Occam's razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 79-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03210778
74. Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.1
75. Nosofsky, R. M., Little, D. R., Donkin, C., & Fific, M. (2011). Short-term memory scanning viewed as exemplar-based categorization. Psychological Review, 118, 280-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022494
76. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220
77. Pavawalla, S. P., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Smith, R. E. (2012). Prospective memory after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: A multinomial modeling approach. Neuropsychology, 26, 91-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025866
78. Pitt, M. A., & Myung, I. J. (2002). When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 421-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01964-2
79. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
80. Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111, 159-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159
81. Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for twochoice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00067
82. Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333
83. Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 438-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196302
84. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139062367
85. Schmiedek, F., Oberauer, K., Wilhelm, O., Süss, H. M., & Wittmann, W. W. (2007). Individual differences in components of reaction time distributions and their relations to working memory and intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 414-429. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.414
86. Schneider, A., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburgh. PA: Psychology Software Tools.
87. 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, and Cognition, 36, 190-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017732
88. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Shelton, J. T. (2013). The dynamic multiprocess framework: Evidence from prospective memory with contextual variability. Cognitive Psychology, 67, 55-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.001
89. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018971
90. Senders, J. W., & Moray, N. P. (1991). Human error: Cause, prediction, and reduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
91. Shorrock, S. T. (2005). Errors of memory in air traffic control. Safety Science, 43, 571-588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.04.001
92. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347
93. Smith, R. E. (2010). What costs do reveal and moving beyond the cost debate: Reply to Einstein and McDaniel (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1089-1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019183
94. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.756
95. Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2005). The effects of working memory resource availability on prospective memory: A formal modeling approach. Experimental Psychology, 52, 243-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.4.243
96. Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2006). The source of adult age differences in event-based prospective memory: A multinomial modeling approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 623-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.623
97. Smith, R. E., Horn, S. S., & Bayen, U. J. (2012). Prospective memory in young and older adults: The effects of ongoing-task load. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 19, 495-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.633161
98. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.734
99. Smith, R. E., & Loft, S. (2014). Investigating the cost to ongoing tasks not associated with prospective memory task requirements. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.002
100. Smith, R. E., McConnell-Rogers, M. D., McVay, J. C., Lopez, J. A., & Loft, S. (2014). Investigating how implementation intentions improve non-focal prospective memory tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 213-230.
101. Taylor, R. S., Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Hancock, T. W. (2004). The influence of partial-match cues on event-based prospective memory. Memory, 12, 203-213.
102. Townsend, J. T., & Altieri, N. (2012). An accuracy-response time capacity assessment function that measures performance against standard parallel predictions. Psychological Review, 119, 500-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028448
103. Townsend, J. T., & Eidels, A. (2011). Workload capacity spaces: A unified methodology for response time measures of efficiency as workload is varied. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 659-681. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0106-9
104. Townsend, J. T., & Nozawa, G. (1995). Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1995.1033
105. Treisman, M., & Williams, T. C. (1984). A theory of criterion setting with an application to sequential dependencies. Psychological Review, 91, 68-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.1.68
106. Turner, B. M., Van Zandt, T., & Brown, S. (2011). A dynamic stimulus-driven model of signal detection. Psychological Review, 118, 583-613. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0025191
107. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.550
108. van Ravenzwaaij, D., & Oberauer, K. (2009). How to use the diffusion model: Monte-Carlo simulations evaluating parameter recovery of three methods: EZ, Fast-DM, and DMAT. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 463-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.09.004
109. Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1206-1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196893
110. Voss, A., & Voss, J. (2007). Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 767-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03192967
111. 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. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 539-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000711009X477581
112. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ratcliff, R., Gómez, P., & McKoon, G. (2008). A diffusion model account of threshold shifts in the lexical decision task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 140-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.006
113. Woods, S. P., Iudicello, J. E., Moran, L. M., Carey, C. L., Dawson, M. S., & Grant, I., & the HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center Group. (2008). HIV-associated prospective memory impairment increases risk of dependence in everyday functioning. Neuropsychology, 22, 110-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.1.110