Context-specific prospective-memory processing: Evidence for flexible attention allocation adjustments after intention encoding

Abstract

Prospective memory (PM) is remembering to fulfill intentions in the future. Interference of unfulfilled intentions with ongoing activities reflects the allocation of attention to the PM task. Prior research has shown that, when people know in which specific context PM cues will occur, attention allocation is adaptive, with slower responses in the PM-relevant context. We examined whether people flexibly adjust their attention allocation when the PM-context association is unknown at intention encoding and must be learned on-task. Different stimulus shapes represented contexts in an ongoing task, with PM cues only occurring in trials with one specific shape. Participants informed about the PM-relevant shape responded more slowly on trials with this shape. Participants instructed that only one, unspecified shape was PM-relevant learned the PM-context association and also allocated attention flexibly, depending on context relevance. However, participants with no context-related information at intention encoding failed to learn the PM-context association, resulting in inflexible attention allocation and poorer PM performance. The present study provides evidence that people can flexibly update their attention-allocation policy, and thereby optimize their PM performance after initial intention encoding, but self-guided learning of intention-context associations appears to be limited.

A fresh pair of eyes on prospective memory monitoring

“…Of particular interest was the finding that a cue-driven monitoring process was directly initiated by subtle cues, in the form of semantically related images that were embedded in the continuous task. Past studies have revealed that contextual cues in the environment often prompt retrieval of a future intention (Harris & Wilkins, 1982, Henry et al, 2012Kuhlmann & Rummel, 2014;Kvavilashvilli & Fisher, 2007), and the present research extended this finding with the observation that contextual cues can trigger retrieval of the future intention, thereby prompting participants to overtly monitor for prospective memory targets. Salient external cues have been shown to be helpful to adults (Guajardo & Best, 2000) in a variety of laboratory studies (Einstein & McDaniel, 1996;Kim & Mayhorn, 2008;Villa, 1998), including investigations of air traffic control (Loft et al, 2011).…”

“…It remains unclear exactly how environmental cues interact with the cognitive mechanisms supporting prospective memory, although some research has suggested that people will adjust how they allocate attention to the prospective memory task if they are instructed about contextual cues that will accompany the prospective memory target (Kuhlmann & Rummel, 2014). Scullin, McDaniel, and Einstein (2010) examined this question by implanting subtle cues (either words that were semantically related to the prospective memory target or specific color backgrounds) proximal to the onset of that target item.…”

Prospective memory in context: Moving through a familiar space.

“…As reviewed by Smith and Loft (2014), studies that have demarcated clearly the blocks of trials which contain a PM target event from those that will not include a PM target find no cost to ongoing performance unless the context is relevant for a PM response (Cook, Marsh, Clark-Foos, & Meeks, 2007; Marsh, Hicks, & Cook, 2006). Other studies have found a cost on irrelevant trials, albeit often reduced from relevant trials, but in those studies the context is less predictive of the appearance of a PM target because in many cases the relevant and irrelevant trials alternated randomly so that it was not possible to predict in advance of the presentation of the stimulus on a given trial whether the particular trial would be relevant (Cohen, Jaudas, Hirschhorn, Sobin, & Gollwitzer, 2012; Kuhlmann & Rummel, 2014; Lourenço & Maylor, 2014; Lourenço, White, & Maylor, 2011; Marsh, Cook, & Hicks, 2006, Experiment 1B). Additional details can be found in Table 1 of Smith and Loft (2014; Smith, under review).…”

The role of context expectations and cost of reporting on prospective person memory performance

“…One factor that may influence the process of finding a missing/wanted person is the searcher's expectations of encountering the person. PM research shows that people allocate their limited cognitive resources according to their expectations about when they will need to use their resources to complete a PM task (Cook, Marsh, & Hicks, ; Kuhlmann & Rummel, ; Lourenço & Maylor, ; Lourenço, White, & Maylor, ; Marsh, Hicks, & Cook, ; Smith, Hunt, & Murray, ). In one study, Cook et al () told participants to expect a PM cue to appear during the time that it actually appeared or to expect a PM cue to appear after it actually appeared.…”

“…Participants with accurate expectations performed better than participants with inaccurate expectations. In another study, Kuhlmann and Rummel () told some participants to expect PM cues after a specific shape (e.g., triangle) appeared on a computer screen. Others were told that the PM cues would appear after a shape but were not told which shape.…”