Prior task experience and comparable stimulus exposure nullify focal and nonfocal prospective memory retrieval differences

References

• Cherry, K. E., Martin, R. C., Simmons-D'Gerolamo, S. S., Pinkston, J. B., Griffing, A., & Gouvier, W. D. (2001). Prospective remembering in younger and older adults: Role of the prospective cue. Memory, 9, 177–193. doi: 10.1080/09658210143000092
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149–156. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.149
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. L., Jaudas, A., Hirschhorn, E., Sobin, E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). The specificity of prospective memory costs. Memory, 20, 848–864. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2012.710637
   Google Scholar
• Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (2005). Associating a time-based prospective memory task with an expected context can improve or impair intention completion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 345–360. doi: 10.1002/acp.1082
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717–726.
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory. Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Richardson, S. L., Guynn, M. J., & Cunfer, A. R. (1995). Aging and prospective memory: Examining the influences of self-initiated retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 996–1007.
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., … Breneiser, J. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327–342. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, J., & Milne, A. (1996). Retrieval cue specificity and the realization of delayed intentions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49, 862–887. doi: 10.1080/713755662
   Google Scholar
• Guynn, M. J. (2003). A two-process model of strategic monitoring in event-based prospective memory: Activation/retrieval mode and checking. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 245–256. doi: 10.1080/00207590344000178
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, J. L., Marsh, R. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions? Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 430–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Hintzman, D. L. (2004). Judgment of frequency versus recognition confidence: Repetition and recursive reminding. Memory & Cognition, 32, 336–350. doi: 10.3758/BF03196863
   Google Scholar
• Hintzman, D. L. (2010). How does repetition affect memory? Evidence from judgments of recency. Memory & Cognition, 38, 102–115. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.1.102
   Google Scholar
• Knight, J. B., Meeks, J. T., Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., Brewer, G. A., & Hicks, J. L. (2011). An observation on the spontaneous noticing of prospective memory event-based cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 298–307.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, B. G., & Rummel, J. (2014). Context-specific prospective-memory processing: Evidence for flexible attention allocation adjustments after intention encoding. Memory & Cognition, 42, 943–949. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0405-2
   Google Scholar
• Kvavilashvili, L., & Fisher, L. (2007). Is time-based prospective remembering mediated by self-initiated rehearsals? Role of incidental cues, ongoing activity, age, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 112–132. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.112
   Google Scholar
• Loft, S., Bowden, V. K., Ball, B. H., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Fitting an ex-Gaussian function to examine costs in event-based prospective memory: Evidence for a continuous monitoring profile. Acta Psychologica, 152, 177–182. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.08.010
   Google Scholar
• Loft, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2012). Enhanced recognition of words previously presented in a task with nonfocal prospective memory requirements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1142–1147. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0303-1
   Google Scholar
• Loft, S., Kearney, R., & Remington, R. (2008). Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? Memory & Cognition, 36, 139–148. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.139
   Google Scholar
• Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2013). Wait a second: Brief delays in responding reduce focality effects in event-based prospective memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1432–1447. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.750677
   Google Scholar
• Lourenço, J. S., White, K., & Maylor, E. A. (2013). Target context specification can reduce costs in nonfocal prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1757–1764.
   Google Scholar
• Lourenço, J. S., Hill, J. H., & Maylor, E. A. (2015). Too easy? The influence of task demands conveyed tacitly on prospective memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 242. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00242
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., & Hicks, J. L. (2006). Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1636–1643. doi: 10.3758/BF03195926
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 336–349.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 68–75.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., Hansen, J. S., & Pallos, A. L. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 861–870.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Landau, J. D. (1998). An investigation of everyday prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 633–643. doi: 10.3758/BF03211383
   Google Scholar
• Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 57, 203–220. doi: 10.1037/h0087426
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–S144. doi: 10.1002/acp.775
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O., & Breneiser, J. (2004). Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 605–614.
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., LaMontagne, P., Beck, S. M., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2013). Dissociable neural routes to successful prospective memory. Psychological Science, 24, 1791–1800. doi: 10.1177/0956797613481233
   Google Scholar
• Mullet, H. G., Scullin, M. K., Hess, T. J., Scullin, R. B., Arnold, K. M., & Einstein, G. O. (2013). Prospective memory and aging: Evidence for preserved spontaneous retrieval with exact but not related cues. Psychology and Aging, 28, 910–922. doi: 10.1037/a0034347
   Google Scholar
• Nowinski, J. L., & Dismukes, R. K. (2005). Effects of ongoing task context and target typicality on prospective memory performance: The importance of associative cueing. Memory, 13, 649–657. doi: 10.1080/09658210444000313
   Google Scholar
• Otani, H., Landau, J. D., Libkuman, T. M., St. Louis, J. P., Kazen, J. K., & Throne, G. W. (1997). Prospective memory and divided attention. Memory, 5, 343–360. doi: 10.1080/741941393
   Google Scholar
• Rummel, J. (2010). Psychological distance to a prospective memory cue influences the probability of fulfilling a delayed intention. Memory, 18, 284–292. doi: 10.1080/09658211003601514
   Google Scholar
• Rummel, J., & Meiser, T. (2013). The role of metacognition in prospective memory: Anticipated task demands influence attention allocation strategies. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 22, 931–943. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.006
   Google Scholar
• Scullin, M. K., Gordon, B. A., Shelton, J. T., Lee, J., Head, D., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). Evidence for a detrimental relationship between hypertension history, prospective memory, and prefrontal cortex white matter in cognitively normal older adults. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 405–416. doi: 10.3758/s13415-013-0152-z
   Google Scholar
• Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 736–749.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 347–361.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. E. (2010). What costs do reveal and moving beyond the cost debate: Reply to Einstein and McDaniel (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1089–1095.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 756–777.
   Google Scholar
• Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001b). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 14–33.
   Google Scholar