A Multinomial Model of Event-Based Prospective Memory.

Abstract

Prospective memory is remembering to perform an action in the future. The authors introduce the 1st formal model of event-based prospective memory, namely, a multinomial model that includes 2 separate parameters related to prospective memory processes. The 1st measures preparatory attentional processes, and the 2nd measures retrospective memory processes. The model was validated in 4 experiments. Manipulations of instructions to place importance on either the prospective memory task or the background task (Experiments 1 and 2) and manipulations of distinctiveness of prospective memory targets (Experiment 2) had expected effects on model parameters, as did a manipulation of the difficulty of prospective memory target encoding (Experiments 3 and 4). An alternative model was also evaluated.

Multiple Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval: Factors Determining Monitoring Versus Spontaneous Retrieval.

“…She stated that retrieval of an intention will never be automatic, because nonautomatic preparatory processes must be engaged during the performance interval, or the time in which the opportunity to carry out the action is likely to occur, but before the occurrence of the target event. (p. 349) Smith and Bayen's (2004) formal multinomial model reinforces this theoretical position: The only path to PM retrieval in their model is through monitoring. Research showing that dividing attention during retrieval decreases PM performance (Einstein, Smith, McDaniel, & Shaw, 1997;McDaniel, Robinson-Riegler, & Einstein, 1998;Park, Hertzog, Kidder, Morrell, & Mayhorn, 1997) supports the monitoring theory.…”

“…The PM task was to press a key whenever a target item occurred anywhere among the 10 -14 words in the sentence. If participants need to engage a resource-demanding monitoring process for each individual word in the sentence in order to detect a single target (as Smith & Bayen's [2004] model proposes), then performing a PM task in addition to the ongoing task should produce robust costs. From the multiprocess view that participants rely on different processes for different task demands, we expected no costs with a single target and significant costs with six-target events.…”

Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories

“…The PAM theory (Smith, 2003;Smith & Bayen, 2004;Smith et al, 2007) argues that, during the interval in which the prospective memory task must be executed, "successful true [prospective memory] performance requires that preparatory attentional processes be engaged" (Smith et al, 2007, p. 742). Furthermore, the PAM theory argues that we do not have to be consciously aware of the engagement of preparatory (e.g., monitoring) processes, but nevertheless, these processes will consume attentional resources.…”

“…1 Monitoring theories such as the preparatory attentional and memory processes (PAM) theory argue that monitoring or other preparatory processes must be engaged prior to the occurrence of a target event for an intention to be successfully retrieved (Smith, 2003;Smith & Bayen, 2004;Smith, Hunt, McVay, & McConnell, 2007). These processes are assumed to be nonautomatic and to require attentional or working memory capacity and may be conscious or unconscious (Smith et al, 2007).…”

“…On the other hand, if prospective memory retrieval is spontaneous and does not require monitoring for cues at the time the target event is encountered (and immediately preceding the target event), high prospective memory performance can be obtained in the absence of task interference (see the multiprocess theory; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). The results of research testing for task interference have been mixed (A.-L. Cohen, Jaudus, & Gollwitzer, 2008;Guynn, 2003;Marsh et al, 2003;Smith, 2003;Smith & Bayen, 2004;Smith et al, 2007), suggesting that the parameters of the ongoing and prospective memory tasks may determine whether prospective memory retrieval requires that attentional resources be allocated to the prospective memory task immediately prior to target events (but see Smith et al, 2007, for an alternative explanation).…”