Investigating the effects of ongoing-task bias on prospective memory

Event-based prospective memory (PM) refers to the cognitive processes required to perform a planned action upon encountering a future event. Event-based PM studies engage participants in an ongoing task (e.g., lexical decision-making) with an instruction to make an alternative PM response to certain items (e.g., items containing “tor”). The Prospective Memory Decision Control (PMDC) model, which provides a quantitative process account of ongoing-task and PM decisions, proposes that PM and ongoing-task processes compete in a race to threshold. We use PMDC to test whether, as proposed by the Delay Theory of PM costs, PM can be improved by biasing decision-making against a specific ongoing-task choice, so that the PM process is more likely to win the race. We manipulated bias in a lexical decision task with an accompanying PM intention. In one condition, a bias was induced against deciding items were words, and in another, a bias was induced against deciding items were non-words. The bias manipulation had little effect on PM accuracy but did affect the types of ongoing-task responses made on missed PM trials. PMDC fit the observed data well and verified that the bias manipulation had the intended effect on ongoing-task processes. Furthermore, although simulations from PMDC could produce an improvement in PM accuracy due to ongoing-task bias, this required implausible parameter values. These results illustrate the importance of understanding event-based PM in terms of a comprehensive model of the processes that interact to determine all aspects of task performance.

[1]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  Event-Based Prospective Remembering: An Integration of Prospective Memory and Cognitive Control Theories , 2013 .

[2]  Brandon M. Turner,et al.  A method for efficiently sampling from distributions with correlated dimensions. , 2013, Psychological methods.

[3]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Computational Models as Aids to Better Reasoning in Psychology , 2010 .

[4]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[5]  U. Bayen,et al.  Modeling criterion shifts and target checking in prospective memory monitoring. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Bruno Kopp,et al.  Data quality over data quantity in computational cognitive neuroscience , 2018, NeuroImage.

[7]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Accumulating Evidence About What Prospective Memory Costs Actually Reveal , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Elizabeth A Maylor,et al.  Target context specification can reduce costs in nonfocal prospective memory. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Bryan A. Franks,et al.  Prior Task Experience and Comparable Stimulus Exposure Nullify Focal and Nonfocal Prospective Memory Retrieval Differences , 2017, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[11]  D. Raab Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. , 1962, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Cognitive control and capacity for prospective memory in complex dynamic environments. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  Dynamic models of choice , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[14]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Racing to Remember: A Theory of Decision Control in Event-Based Prospective Memory , 2018, Psychological review.

[15]  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.

[16]  C. White,et al.  Decomposing bias in different types of simple decisions. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[18]  Beat Meier,et al.  Beyond monitoring: After-effects of responding to prospective memory targets , 2012, Consciousness and Cognition.

[19]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Prospective memory in the red zone: Cognitive control and capacity sharing in a complex, multi-stimulus task. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[20]  D. Bates,et al.  The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care* , 2005, Critical care medicine.

[21]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Slow down and remember to remember! A delay theory of prospective memory costs. , 2015, Psychological review.

[22]  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.

[23]  U. Bayen,et al.  A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  K. Dismukes,et al.  Prospective memory in safety-critical work contexts , 2019, Prospective Memory.

[25]  Jason L Hicks,et al.  Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Russell J. Boag,et al.  Strategic attention and decision control support prospective memory in a complex dual-task environment , 2019, Cognition.

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

[28]  Francis T Anderson,et al.  Proceeding With Care for Successful Prospective Memory: Do We Delay Ongoing Responding or Actively Monitor for Cues? , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design , 2018, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[30]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  AIC model selection using Akaike weights , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[33]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[34]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[35]  T. Braver The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  R. Dismukes,et al.  Prospective Memory in Workplace and Everyday Situations , 2012 .

[37]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  The effects of aging on the speed-accuracy compromise: Boundary optimality in the diffusion model. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[38]  D. Raab DIVISION OF PSYCHOLOGY: STATISTICAL FACILITATION OF SIMPLE REACTION TIMES* , 1962 .