Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 923–935 | Cite as

Response dynamics of event-based prospective memory retrieval in mouse tracking

  • Jason L. HicksEmail author
  • Samantha N. Spitler
  • Megan H. Papesh
Article
  • 178 Downloads

Abstract

Prospective memory (PM) is typically measured using keypresses in laboratory paradigms, which therefore assess only discrete, stage-like processes. In the present study we manipulated focal and nonfocal PM cue conditions, as well as participants’ focus on different aspects of the PM/ongoing task set, using the methodology to capture dynamic computer mouse movements. The software captured mouse trajectories during lexical decisions and PM responses. We replicated many findings typical in the PM literature, including the accuracy advantage for focal over nonfocal conditions and longer ongoing-task response times for nonfocal conditions. Participants’ movement trajectories during PM responses revealed evidence for both spontaneous-retrieval and strategic-monitoring processes in focal and nonfocal PM retrieval conditions. During trials suggestive of spontaneous retrieval, mouse trajectories initially went toward the typical ongoing-task response but turned mid-trajectory toward the PM response field on the opposite side of the computer screen. In nonfocal conditions, these trajectory reversals had a wider arc and took longer to complete, reflecting the likely greater retrospective retrieval requirements of nonfocal conditions. Regarding what are more likely to be strategic-monitoring processes, a significant portion of responses traveled directly to the PM response field, as though people were prepared to make such a response.

Keywords

Prospective memory Retrieval dynamics Mouse tracking Attentional monitoring Spontaneous retrieval 

Notes

Supplementary material

13421_2019_909_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. Abney, D. H., McBride, D. M., Conte, A. M., & Vinson, D. W. (2015). Response dynamics in prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1020–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717–726.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.717 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226–241.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.226 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Graf, P. (2005). Prospective memory retrieval revisited. In N. Ohta, C. M. MacLeod, & B. Uttl (Eds.), Dynamic cognitive processes (pp. 305–332). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guynn, M. J. (2003). A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective momory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 245–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heathcote, A., Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2015). Slow down and remember to remember! A delay theory of prospective memory costs. Psychological Review, 122, 376–410.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038952 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hehman, E., Stolier, R. M., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). Advanced mouse-tracking analytic techniques for enhancing psychological science. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 384–401.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214538325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hicks, J. L., Franks, B. A., & Spitler, S. N. (2017). Prior task experience and comparable stimulus exposure nullify focal and nonfocal prospective memory retrieval differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1997–2006.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1217891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horn, S. S., & Bayen, U. J. (2015). Modeling criterion shifts and target checking in prospective memory monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 95–117.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037676 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, A., Mulder, B., Sijbinga, A., & Hulsebos, L. (2012). Action as a window to perception: Measuring attention with mouse movements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 802–809.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kieslich, P. J., & Henninger, F. (2017). Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1652–1667.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0900-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210042000003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000099 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurtz, M. (2017). Investing the processes underlying cost to the ongoing task and after effects in prospective memory. Unpublished master’s thesis, Technische Universität Dresden.Google Scholar
  17. Magnuson, J. S. (2005). Moving hand reveals dynamics of thought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 9995–9996.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504413102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.68 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.861 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Watson, V. (2002). The dynamics of intention retrieval and coordination of action in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 652–659.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.652 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–S144.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meier, B., Zimmermann, T. D., & Perrig, W. J. (2006). Retrieval experience in prospective memory: Strategic monitoring and spontaneous retrieval. Memory, 14, 872–889.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600783774 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2012). Memory in motion: Movement dynamics reveal memory strength. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 906–913.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-028103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rummel, J., & Meiser, T. (2013). The role of metacognition in prospective memory: Anticipated task demands influence attention allocation strategies. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 931–943.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Rummel, J., Wesslein, A. K., & Meiser, T. (2017). The role of action coordination for prospective memory: Task-interruption demands affect intention realization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 717–735.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000334 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Scherbaum, S., & Kieslich, P. J. (2018). Stuck at the starting line: How the starting procedure influences mouse-tracking data. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2097–2110.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0977-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Shelton, J. (2013). The dynamic multiprocess framework: Evidence from prospective memory with contextual variability. Cognitive Psychology, 67, 55–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.756 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Spivey, M. J. (2007). The continuity of mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R. (2006). Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 207–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00437.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 10393–10398.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uttl, B., White, C. A., Gonzalez, D. W., McDouall, J., & Leonard, C. A. (2013). Prospective memory, personality, and individual differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 130:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00130 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason L. Hicks
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samantha N. Spitler
    • 1
  • Megan H. Papesh
    • 1
  1. 1.Louisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations