S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Thursday Evening Posters 1062–1068
(1062)
Evidence of Spontaneous Retrieval for Suspended but Not Completed
Intentions. MICHAEL K. SCULLIN, Washington University, &
GILLES O. EINSTEIN, Furman University—McDaniel and Einstein
(2007) argue that prospective memories can be retrieved through
spontaneous retrieval processes that respond to the presence of a target
event. The present research investigated whether spontaneous retrieval
processes continue to be activated after the completion of a
prospective memory task. In two experiments, participants performed
image-rating phases with a prospective memory task (press the “Q”
key in presence of a target) embedded in one phase. Next, participants
were told that their intention was either completed or suspended. Participants
then performed a lexical decision task in which each target
(and matched control) item appeared five times. Both experiments revealed
slower response times to target items in comparison with control
items when the intention was suspended but not when the intention
was completed, thereby providing evidence for spontaneous
retrieval only in the suspended condition. These initial results suggest
that spontaneous retrieval processes are quickly deactivated following
completion of an intention.
(1063)
Attentional Manipulations Affect Focal and Nonfocal Prospective
Memory Cues Differently. GABRIEL I. COOK, Claremont McKenna
College, J. THADEUS MEEKS & RICHARD L. MARSH, University of
Georgia, & GILLES O. EINSTEIN, Furman University—Event-based
prospective memories involve retrieving intentions in the presence of
an environmental cue. Such cues vary in their specificity, and consequently,
the degree to which they evoke retrieval of the previously established
intention. According to the multiprocess view of prospective
memory, very specific cues (i.e., focal cues) are detected relatively automatically,
whereas less specific cues (i.e., nonfocal cues) require
more attentional resources to be devoted to intention completion to
achieve the same level of performance. Three experiments used three
different manipulations of reducing the attention available for intention
completion in order to demonstrate that in all three cases the detection
of nonfocal cues was more severely impacted than the detection
of focal cues. The manipulations included level of effort required
to perform the task in which cues were embedded, a response signal
procedure, and a random number divided attention task. Thus, not all
event-based cues require the same resources to be detected.
(1064)
Effects of Very Long-Term Penetrating Head Injury on Laboratory
Prospective Memory. LIA KVAVILASHVILI, University of Hertfordshire,
& VANESSA RAYMONT & JORDAN GRAFMAN, National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke—Research on patients
with traumatic brain injury (TBI) has shown that they experience
deficits in remembering both event- and time-based prospective memory
tasks (remembering to do something in response to an event or at
a particular time in the future, respectively). However, very long-term
effects of TBI on prospective memory have not been examined. The
present study assessed 199 Vietnam veterans with penetrating head injury
(PHI) and 55 matched controls on three laboratory prospective
memory tasks embedded within a general knowledge question answering
task: a time-based task, and two event-based tasks with distinctive
or nondistinctive target events. Performance of the control
group on these tasks was not reliably better than that of the group with
long-term PHI. Prospective memory performance will also be examined
in relation to volume, hemisphere, and localization of the damage.
(1065)
Instructions to Complete or Forget an Intention Influence Stroop
Performance. ANNA-LISA COHEN, Yeshiva University, &
D. STEPHEN LINDSAY & JUSTIN KANTNER, University of Victoria—Research
on the “intention superiority effect” (e.g., Goshke &
Kuhl, 1993) revealed that material from scripts that are to be performed
later by the participant are processed faster than is material
60
from a neutral script. Cohen, Dixon, and Lindsay (2005) demonstrated
an “intention interference effect” for both young and older adults in
which performance was slower for critical items belonging to an intention
that participants intended to carry out versus critical items belonging
to an intention that did not have to be executed. In a new line
of studies, we examine the effect of critical item order. Because we
used complex intentions that contained three critical items, we could
examine how the superiority of the intention-related material builds
across items. The results suggest that the first critical item acts as a
reminder (showing no interference) and causes the remaining items to
be retrieved reflexively, leading to Stroop interference.
(1066)
Effects of Delay and Type of Processing on Prospective Memory.
KATHRYN A. HUDSON & DAWN M. MCBRIDE, Illinois State University—Prospective
memory (PM) has been defined as the process
of remembering future events. Multiprocess theory (McDaniel & Einstein,
2000) proposes that PM performance can be more automatic
when the PM and ongoing tasks are highly associated (i.e., focal PM
cues are presented), but utilizes more controlled processes when the
PM and ongoing tasks are not highly associated (i.e., nonfocal PM
cues are presented). The present study examined how the delay between
PM task instruction and PM cue presentation affects PM task performance
with focal and nonfocal PM cues. As reported in previous studies
(e.g., Einstein & McDaniel, 2005), responses to the ongoing task
were faster in focal PM cue conditions than in nonfocal PM cue conditions.
In addition, delay effects on PM task performance differed for
focal and nonfocal conditions. The results of the present study support
multiprocess theory descriptions of PM task performance.
• RECALL •
(1067)
Recalling the List Before the Last: Context Isolation, Context Retrieval,
and Filtering Retrieved Memories. YOONHEE JANG &
DAVID E. HUBER, University of California, San Diego—A series of
experiments used the list before the last free recall paradigm, which
manipulated the list length of both target and intervening lists to index
the degree of interference from each list. Correct target list recall was
only affected by the target list length when participants engaged in recall
between the lists, whereas there was an effect of both list lengths
with other activities. This suggests that the act of recalling drives context
change, isolating the target list from interference. Incorrect recall
of intervening list items was affected only by the length of the intervening
list when recall occurred between the lists, but was otherwise
affected by both list lengths. A multinomial model of sampling and
recovery was implemented to assess the adequacy of this account.
These results suggest a more nuanced account of retroactive interference
that includes context isolation, context retrieval, and the ability
to filter retrieved memories.
(1068)
Memory by Sampling. CAROLINE MORIN & GORDON D. A.
BROWN, University of Warwick—According to temporal distinctiveness
models of memory such as SIMPLE (Brown, Neath, & Chater,
2007), memory items’ temporal locations are represented as points on
a temporal dimension in multidimensional psychological space. Such
models do not provide a natural account of item presentation duration
effects or rehearsal effects. Here, we explore predictions of a modified
time-based model (memory by sampling) in which the temporal
extension of items is explicitly represented. In Experiment 1, participants
viewed lists of words whose presentation times followed either
a U-shaped or an inverted U-shaped distribution. Participants overtly
rehearsed each item during its presentation. In Experiment 2, presentation
durations were random. Item recall increased systematically
with item presentation time, especially in delayed free recall (Experiments
3 and 4). The results were as predicted by the memory by sampling
model.