Interactive effects in transfer-appropriate processing for event-based prospective memory: The roles of effort, ongoing task, and PM cue properties

Past studies (e.g., Marsh, Hicks, & Cook Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31:68–75, 2005 ; Meiser & Schult European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 20:290–311, 2008 ) have shown that transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) effects in event-based prospective m...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Memory & cognition 2013-10, Vol.41 (7), p.1032-1045
Main Authors: Abney, Drew H., McBride, Dawn M., Petrella, Samantha N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Adult
Attention - physiology
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Biological and medical sciences
Cognitive Psychology
Cues
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Hotels & motels
Human
Humans
Learning. Memory
Male
Memory
Memory - physiology
Military withdrawals
Psychology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Random Allocation
Reaction Time - physiology
Semantics
Transfer (Psychology) - physiology
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Past studies (e.g., Marsh, Hicks, & Cook Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31:68–75, 2005 ; Meiser & Schult European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 20:290–311, 2008 ) have shown that transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) effects in event-based prospective memory (PM) depend on the effort directed toward the ongoing task. In the present study, we addressed mixed findings from these studies and examined monitoring in TAP and transfer-inappropriate processing (TIP) conditions. In two experiments, a semantic or orthographic ongoing task was paired with a PM cue that either was matched in processing (TAP) or did not match in processing (TIP). Within each condition, effort was varied across trials. The results indicated that PM accuracy was higher in TAP than in TIP conditions, regardless of effort condition, supporting the findings reported by Meiser and Schult. Ex-Gaussian functions were fit to the mean reaction times (cf. Brewer Journal of Psychology 219:117–124, 2011 ) in order to examine monitoring across conditions. The analysis of distributional skew ( τ parameter) showed sensitivity to ongoing task instructions and properties of the PM cues. These results support Meiser and Schult’s suggestion that TIP conditions require more attentional processing, and they also afford novel discussion on the interactive effects of ongoing task condition, PM cue properties, and manipulations of effort.
ISSN:0090-502X
1532-5946
DOI:10.3758/s13421-013-0324-7