title: A comparison of transfer-appropriate processing and multi-process frameworks for prospective memory performance.
abstract: We examined multi-process (MP) and transfer-appropriate processing descriptions of prospective memory (PM). Three conditions were compared that varied the overlap in processing type (perceptual/conceptual) between the ongoing and PM tasks such that two conditions involved a match of perceptual processing and one condition involved a mismatch in processing (conceptual ongoing task/perceptual PM task). One of the matched processing conditions also created a focal PM task, whereas the other two conditions were considered non-focal (Einstein & McDaniel, 2005). PM task accuracy and ongoing task completion speed in baseline and PM task conditions were measured. Accuracy results indicated a higher PM task completion rate for the focal condition than the non-focal conditions, a finding that is consistent with predictions made by the MP view. However, reaction time (RT) analyses indicated that PM task cost did not differ across conditions when practice effects are considered. Thus, the PM accuracy results are consistent with a MP description of PM, but RT results did not support the MP view predictions regarding PM cost.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790, USA. dmcbride@ilstu.edu
authors.forename: Dawn M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: McBride
authors.forename: Drew H
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Abney
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D061212:Memory, Episodic; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D014163:Transfer, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult