Abstract
Three experiments examined the functional relationship between the frequency of prospective responding and the prospective interference effect within the context of a task switching paradigm. Prospective responding was less frequent across the experiments when prospective cues appeared in switch blocks than when they appeared in pure blocks. The magnitude of the prospective interference effect for response time (RT) was similar for pure and switch blocks when exogenous task cuing was used, and was greater for switch blocks than for pure blocks when endogenous task cuing was used. These data reveal a dissociation between the effect of task switching on the frequency of prospective responding and the prospective interference effect, and indicate that the functional relationship between these two measures is dependent on task demands.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baddeley, A. [D.] (1986).Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., &Thomson, N. (1984). Attention and retrieval from long-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 518–540.
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., & Pilotti, M. (1999, November).Itemlevel analysis of lexical decision performance: Results from a megastudy. Poster presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., &Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching.Neuron,39, 713–726.
Burgess, P. W., Quayle, A., &Frith, C. D. (2001). Brain regions involved in prospective memory as determined by positron emission tomography.Neuropsychologia,39, 545–555.
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., &Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 159–180.
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 (Eds.),Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fernandes, M. A., &Moscovitch, M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: Evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 155–176.
Gilbert, S., Frith, C. D., &Burgess, P. W. (2005). Involvement of rostral prefrontal cortex in selection between stimulus-oriented and stimulus-independent thought.European Journal of Neuroscience,21, 1423–1431.
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.
Guynn, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (2001). Remembering to perform actions: A different type of memory? In H. D. Zimmer, R. L. Cohen, M. J. Guynn, J. Engelkamp, R. Kormi-Nouri, & M. A. Foley (Eds.),Memory for action: A distant form of episodic memory? (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hicks, J. L., &Marsh, R. L. (2000). Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1483–1498.
Logan, G. D., &Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 575–599.
Marsh, R. L., Hancock, T. W., &Hicks, J. L. (2002). The demands of an ongoing activity influence the success of event-based prospective memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 604–610.
Marsh, R. L., &Hicks, J. L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 336–349.
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, & Cognition,31, 68–75.
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, & Cognition,29, 861–870.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1992). Aging and prospective memory: Basic findings and practical applications.Advances in Learning & Behavioral Disabilities,7, 87–103.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework.Applied Cognitive Psychology,14, S127-S144.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., &Dori, H. (1998). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: Further support for an asymmetry.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1091–1104.
Reynolds, J., West, R., & Braver, T. (2003). Differentiation of prospective memory and working memory using a mixed state and eventrelated fMRI design [Abstract].Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience: Supplement, p. 147.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.
Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in eventbased prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 347–361.
Smith, R. E., &Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of eventbased prospective memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 756–777.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Windy McNerney, M., West, R. An imperfect relationship between prospective memory and the prospective interference effect. Memory & Cognition 35, 275–282 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193448
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193448