Fitting an ex-Gaussian function to examine costs in event-based prospective memory: evidence for a continuous monitoring profile.

Event-based prospective memory (PM) tasks require individuals to remember to perform a deferred action when a target event occurs. PM task requirements can slow ongoing task responses on non-target trials ('costs') under conditions where the defining features of targets are non-focal to the ongoing task, which is indicative that individuals have allocated some form of cognitive control process to the PM task. Recent fits of the ex-Gaussian mathematical function to non-target trial response distributions by prior studies have indicated that these control processes are transiently allocated. In the current paper, fits of the ex-Gaussian function to data reported by Loft and Humphreys (2012) demonstrate a shift in the entire response time distribution (μ) and an increase in skew (τ) for a non-focal PM condition required to remember to make a PM response if presented with category exemplars, compared to a control condition. This change in μ is indicative of a more continuous PM monitoring profile than that reported by prior studies. In addition, within-subject variability in μ was reliably correlated with PM accuracy, suggesting that these control processes allocated on a regular basis were functional to PM accuracy. In contrast, when the ongoing task directed attention to the defining features of targets (focal PM) there was a trend level increase in μ, but the within-subject variability in μ was not correlated with PM accuracy, consistent with the theoretical premise that focal PM tasks are not as dependent on cognitive control as non-focal PM tasks.

[1]  D. Balota,et al.  Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry , 2011 .

[2]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  R. Marsh,et al.  Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions☆ , 2005 .

[4]  J. Duncan,et al.  Intelligence and the Frontal Lobe: The Organization of Goal-Directed Behavior , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  D. Balota,et al.  Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: beyond measures of central tendency. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Prospective Memory , 2005 .

[7]  R. Hohle INFERRED COMPONENTS OF REACTION TIMES AS FUNCTIONS OF FOREPERIOD DURATION. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Melissa J. Guynn,et al.  A two‐process model of strategic monitoring in event‐based prospective memory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking , 2003 .

[9]  R. R. Hunt,et al.  The cost of event-based prospective memory: salient target events. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Drew H. Abney,et al.  A comparison of transfer-appropriate processing and multi-process frameworks for prospective memory performance. , 2012, Experimental psychology.

[11]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Uncovering continuous and transient monitoring profiles in event-based prospective memory , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Rebekah E. Smith The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  D. Balota,et al.  Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Peter M. Gollwitzer,et al.  The specificity of prospective memory costs , 2012, Memory.

[16]  Jason L Hicks,et al.  Detecting event-based prospective memory cues occurring within and outside the focus of attention. , 2005, The American journal of psychology.

[17]  Rebekah E. Smith What Costs Do Reveal and Moving beyond the Cost Debate: Reply to Einstein and McDaniel (2010). , 2010 .

[18]  Mark A McDaniel,et al.  Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[20]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Stimulus-independent thought depends on central executive resources , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Gene A. Brewer Analyzing response time distributions: Methodological and theoretical suggestions for prospective memory researchers , 2011 .

[22]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Analysis of Response Time Distributions: An Example Using the Stroop Task , 1991 .

[23]  T. Zandt,et al.  How to fit a response time distribution , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[25]  Jason L. Hicks,et al.  Metacognitive awareness of event-based prospective memory , 2007, Consciousness and Cognition.

[26]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Wait a second: Brief delays in responding reduce focality effects in event-based prospective memory , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[27]  Mark A McDaniel,et al.  Prospective memory and what costs do not reveal about retrieval processes: A commentary on Smith, Hunt, McVay, and McConnell (2007). , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Category Norms: An Updated and Expanded Version of the Battig and Montague (1969) Norms. , 2004 .

[29]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  The Dynamic Multiprocess Framework: Evidence from prospective memory with contextual variability , 2013, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Normal aging and prospective memory. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Control of access to memory: The use of task interference as a behavioral probe , 2008 .

[32]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[33]  F. Craik,et al.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  Drew H. Abney,et al.  Interactive effects in transfer-appropriate processing for event-based prospective memory: The roles of effort, ongoing task, and PM cue properties , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  QMPE: Estimating Lognormal, Wald, and Weibull RT distributions with a parameter-dependent lower bound , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.