An observation on the spontaneous noticing of prospective memory event-based cues.

Abstract

In event-based prospective memory, current theories make differing predictions as to whether intention-related material can be spontaneously noticed (i.e., noticed without relying on preparatory attentional processes). In 2 experiments, participants formed an intention that was contextually associated to the final phase of the experiment, and lures that overlapped to differing degrees with the features of the intention-related cues were embedded in the initial phase. When participants were outside of the appropriate responding context (i.e., the initial phase), they exhibited slower latencies to lures that exactly matched the features of their intention compared with other types of lures and control words. In addition, on a final remember/know recognition test, participants reported having greater subjective recollection for the occurrence of the exact-match lures. These results suggest that exact-match lures were spontaneously noticed and differentially processed in the absence of any observable preparatory attentional processes. The findings have implications for the theoretical debate over whether preparatory attention must always be relied upon to notice intention-related material.

Prospective memory and aging: preserved spontaneous retrieval, but impaired deactivation, in older adults

“…Our results support the conclusion that intention interference represents a cue-driven, spontaneous process (Cohen et al, 2005;Knight et al, 2011;Scullin et al, 2009) that occurs in the absence of monitoring. There was no incentive to monitor during the lexical decision task (Knight et al, 2011;Marsh et al, 2006), and all participants reported that they understood that the prospective memory task was finished following the image-rating block.…”

“…A characteristic of spontaneous retrieval is that it occurs without intention; thus, the occurrence of the word dancer was expected to produce (spontaneous) retrieval of intentionrelated information, which would be revealed by slowed lexical decision responding to the target (relative to control) words. This intention interference effect (Cohen et al, 2005), which has been observed reliably in younger adults Knight et al, 2011;Scullin et al, 2009), suggests that some aspect of the prospective memory intention was spontaneously noticed, detected, or retrieved when the target cue was processed.…”

“…There was no incentive to monitor during the lexical decision task (Knight et al, 2011;Marsh et al, 2006), and all participants reported that they understood that the prospective memory task was finished following the image-rating block. Furthermore, the negative correlation between intention interference and the inhibitory composite is inconsistent with a monitoring account of intention interference.…”

“…Critically, the word dancer still appeared during the lexical decision task. Because participants did not need to perform the prospective memory task during the lexical decision task, they did not monitor for the cues or maintain the intention in awareness (Knight et al, 2011;Marsh, Hicks, & Cook 2006;Scullin, McDaniel, & Einstein 2010b). A characteristic of spontaneous retrieval is that it occurs without intention; thus, the occurrence of the word dancer was expected to produce (spontaneous) retrieval of intentionrelated information, which would be revealed by slowed lexical decision responding to the target (relative to control) words.…”

Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements

“…Findings of increased response time to PM lures demonstrate that ongoing task items can receive extra individual attention if their stimulus properties partially or exactly match PM targets (Knight, Meeks, Marsh, Cook, Brewer & Hicks, 2011). PM goals are likely to be spontaneously retrieved when PM lures are processed, with the increased response time caused either by this initial noticing or by subsequent target verification, intention retrieval, or response coordination (Knight et al, 2011).…”