Prospective Memory (everyday Memory) Flashcards
What is retrospective memory
Info of events or experiences in the past
Prospective memory on taxonomy of long term memory
Not included - CRITICISM
Ellis - stages in a PM task
- Formation and encoding of an intention ie what, when, intention/commitment to performing
- Retention interval - retain intention whilst engaged in other activities (delayed)
- Retrieval of intention - retrieval context and realise have an intention to carry out
- Initiate and Carry out
- Evaluate the outcome - successful?
What do prospective memory tasks involve? (Einstein et al)
Retrospective component -
Remember whah have to do and when you should do it
Prospective component -
Remember to recall intention at correct moment when reminded
Need to self Initiate the retrieval of the intended action without explicit prompt to do so
Define event based retrieval Context
Perform an intention when a particular event occurs
External cue reminds you that you have something to do
Define time based retrieval contexts
Perform intention at a particular time or after a particular period of time as elapsed
No external cue - check time periodically in retention interval
What pm recall is better using event based or time based retrieval context
Event based better than time based
Diary studies for PM
Participant record own intentions and report whether or not carried out
Field studies for PM
Participant asked to go about their daily lives and remember something asked to do for the experiment ie post letter or call experimenter
Benefits of real world studies of PM
Ecological validity - naturally occurring intentions and tasks that mimic everyday
Cons of real world studies of PM
Lack experimental control
Ie set alarm to call experimenter
Lab studies for PM
Describe einstein and McDaniel
Participant occupied with ongoing task
Asked to make response when a cue word appears or when a certain amount of time has passed
Cue (time or event) requires interrupting ongoing task and perform intention without an explicit reminder
Einstein and McDaniel
Ways we retrieve an intention
Automatically - sling to mind without attending
Through attentional strategic processes
What is prospective memories
Remembering to carry out your intentions in the near future - vital for daily living
Methods of examining on retrieval and attention
Cost to the ongoing task
Effect of development/ageing
Effect of divided attention
Describe cost to ongoing task
PM requires attention - less attention to ongoing task so slowed performance
Describe effect of development/aging on PM
Young children/older adults fewer attentional resources
Describe effect of divided attention on PM
If PM requires attention then second task that also requires attention should disrupt PM performance
Smith 2003 cost to ongoing task for PM
On going lexical decision task (words real or not)
PM learn 6 cue words - press keg when see cue word - NO CUE ACTUALLY APPEAR
- Expect to see cue after task
- Expect to see cue during task
‘During’ much slower response time than after - requires monitoring for cue word and this takes up attention
Smith ‘prepatory attentional and memory processes model’
Attentional resources always required for successful PM retrieval
Marsh et al 2003 cost to On going task
Compare speed of ongoing to Pps who:
- Respond to cue word DOG in LDT
- Not asked to respond to a cue word
- no sig diff between groups
93% cue words detected (not doing task at expense of PM)
Suggests attention not necessary for PM retrieval and only need automatic retrieval when we encounter the cue
McDaniel and Einstein ‘multiprocess account’
Approaches to retrieving an intention:
- PM retrieval sometimes automatics and sometimes require attention (strategic)
- Need for attention resources depend on:
Relation between cue and action
No. retrieval cues
Relation between cue and ongoing task (cue focality) - Preference for automatic retrieval
Contrast between smith prepatory attentional and memory processes and McDaniel and Einstein multiprocess account
PAM argues attentional resources always needed for successful PM
Multiprocess argues prefer automatic but can be attentional also - depends on situation
Cue - action relationship and automatic retrieval assumption
Assume that automatic retrieval more likely when strong relationship between the cue and the action
McDaniel et al 2004 divided attention and cue action relation
Divided attention to asses attention demands
- if strong cue action relation is automatic then secondary task have little effect
- if weak cue action requires attention then PM impaired when divided by second task
Ongoing task: rate words
PM task: four cue words in ongoing task
Related condition: see spaghetti write sauce
Unrelated condition: see spaghetti write church
Divided attention: listen to stream of digits and press button if hear two odd numbers
+ full attention condition
Results McDaniel et al 2004 divided attention on cue action relation
Superior PM when cue related > unrelated
No difference in PM between divided/full attention when related
- intention retrieved automatically
PM worse in divided when unrelated
- strategic processing to retrieve intent
McDaniel and Einstein 2000 number of cues
Number of cues influence demand for attention
Detect single cue automatically
Detect multiple cues requires attention
(Cost to ongoing when 6 diff cues but not when single cue - smith 2003, marsh et al 2003)
PM retrieval and cue focality assumption
retrieval more likely automatic when directly relevant to ongoing task (focal) than when not (non focal)
Einstein et al 2005 PM and cue focality
Ongoing task - category in uppercase then word of category in lower case - is lowercase part of category?
Focal: press key when see word relate to category
Non focal: press key when see syllable ‘tor’ in word (ongoing task requires process of whole not syllable)
Results Einstein et al 2005 PM and cue focality
93% success rate for focal 63% for non focal
Cost of ongoing task demand for attention:
Control and focal performance in ongoing task the same - automatic
Task performance slower for non focal - strategic monitoring for PM cues
Harris 1984 time based task on PM retrieval
Test wait test exit model
Don’t continuously monitor for appropriate intention time but periodically sample time to check for right moment ie check every half hour
Harris and Wilkins 1982 time based tasks and PM
Pps watch two hour film and given pile of cards with designated times
- told to hold up each card after the amount of time has past
- only way to check was look at clock behind them
- monitor time strategically during retention intervals - infrequent checks and then more frequent nearer target time
- monitoring behaviour determines PM success - increase freq near target time then more likely to respond on time
What are encoding factors
Implementation intentions a typically involve precise specification of when an intention will be Carried out x verbal statement of intent x imagery of performing action
Event based task but with additional instructions that focus encoding process in link between the cue and the actions
McDaniel et al 2008 implementation actions
Pps press Q key when see word spaghetti or doll on word rating task
- Read only - repeat instructions back to experimenter
- Imagery - repeat instructions and imagine performing intention for 30 secs
- Implementation - repeat instruction, imagine performing then read aloud what they will do
~either full or divided attention~
Results McDaniel et al 2008 implementation intentions
Implementation benefit PM > read aloud or imagery - especially when divided attention
No evidence that divided attention impairs PM in implementation
- implementation intention strengthen link between cue and action? - automatic retrieval of intention when cue
Periera Ellis and freeman 2009 enactment
Pps learn cue action pairs
- Verbal encoding (read aloud)
- Entactment at encoding (perform mine)
Ongoing task - word categorisation
- remember actions when see cues
Enacting at encoding improves PM performance
Retention interval factors on PM retrieval
Event based PM influenced by:
- Length of retention interval between encoding and retrieval
- nature of the activities performed in the retention interval
PM best when multiple activities in retention interval and retention interval longer
Why do retention interval factors impact PM performance
Multiple activities provide breaks giving opportunity to review intentions
Attention drift from activities during long retention interval - more likely to think about intentions
Effects of retention interval vary according to attentional attentional demands of task? - less interval of retention interval factors if PM automatic
Ellis diary study benefit of task importance on PM
Positive correlation between importance of intention and likelihood or recollection
Andrzejewski et al questionnaire study on task importance of PM
Report that higher proportion of important intentions are completed > unimportant
Somerville et al field study of task importance on PM
Children more likely to remind parents to take to sweet shop than bring the washing in
Kliegel et al 2001 LAB task importance on PM
Pps complete computerised word rating task
Time based - press red key every 2 min (PM)
Event based - press key when see word gespräch
1/2 told PM more important than word task
1/2 told word rating more important
- PM more important more likely to respond in time based but no effect of importance on PM in event based task
Kliegel et al 2004 LAB task importance on PM
Non focal: press key when see letters g or q
Focal: press key when see word gespräch
1/2 PM more important and vise versa
- benefit of relative importance of PM in non focal but not focal - only influence when strategic processing used
PM failures in everyday life
Dismukes
27 US air incidents and 5 due to failure of PM
Nowinski Holbrook and dismukes
74/75 memory errors in aviation safety reporting involved forgetting to carry out task
Loukopoulos dismukes and barshi observation of PM in everyday
Observed real world performance on airplane pilots during flight simulation training and real flights in cockpit
Pilots frequently interrupted during vital tasks creating a need to form intent to resume after interruption
- pilots go straight to new task after interruption without completing interrupted task
Why might interruption disrupt Performance hypothesis
Demanding interruptions divert attention A fail to form adequate intent to resume
No explicit cue to prompt retrieval of intention once interruption dealt with
Dodhia and dismukes 2005 interruptions on PM
Students answer general knowledge Q in blocks
Told interrupted at various points
After interruption told they should go back and completed interrupted block of questions before starting new block BUT after interruption computer presents new Q (have to remember to go back
Results dodhia and dismukes 2005 interruption on PM
Hyp 1: interruption consumes attention:
Interrupt activity immediate - 48% resume blocks
Interior with 4 sec blank screen before task - 65% resume blocks
Hyp 2: no explicit retrieval cue to return
Message saying ‘end of interruption’ - increase to 90%
