title: Uncovering continuous and transient monitoring profiles in event-based prospective memory.
abstract: The present study implemented response time distribution modeling to better characterize context-specific attention dynamics underlying task interference due to possessing a prospective memory intention. During a three-phase paradigm in which prospective memory cues appeared only in the final phase, prospective memory performance was better when participants were informed at encoding of the context in which cues were to appear than when participants were not informed. Additionally, task interference increased during the third phase when the cue context was previously specified. Ex-Gaussian parameter estimates revealed that task interference during the third phase was due to a greater relative frequency of longer latencies, rather than an overall increase in latencies across all trials, suggesting that participants relied primarily on transient, rather than continuous, monitoring processes to support cue detection. Functionally, variability in transient and continuous monitoring profiles was predictive of prospective memory cue detection. More generally, the results from the present study suggest that ex-Gaussian parameter estimation procedures may provide a fruitful avenue for better understanding how attention is differentially allocated to ongoing tasks, what processes might underlie monitoring behavior, and how this behavior is related to eventual intention fulfillment.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA, Hunter.Ball@asu.edu.
authors.forename: B Hunter
authors.initials: BH
authors.lastname: Ball
authors.forename: Gene A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Brewer
authors.forename: Shayne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Loft
authors.forename: Vanessa
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Bowden
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001244:Association; D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007092:Imagination; D033182:Intention; D008297:Male; D061212:Memory, Episodic; D016011:Normal Distribution; D011930:Reaction Time; D014706:Verbal Learning; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Apr;26(2):506-26
references.pmid: 10811160
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Aug;136(3):414-29
references.pmid: 17696691
references.citation: Conscious Cogn. 2012 Dec;21(4):1644-53
references.pmid: 23064406
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2006 Jul;34(5):1037-45
references.pmid: 17128602
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Mar;37(2):298-307
references.pmid: 21299328
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2012;59(4):190-8
references.pmid: 22411182
references.citation: Memory. 2006 Oct;14(7):872-89
references.pmid: 16938698
references.citation: Neuropsychology. 2010 May;24(3):300-15
references.pmid: 20438208
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Mar;27(2):514-44
references.pmid: 11294447
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2003 Sep;9(3):147-62
references.pmid: 14570509
references.citation: Memory. 2005 Aug;13(6):649-57
references.pmid: 16076678
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):502-7
references.pmid: 16235636
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):347-61
references.pmid: 12776746
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Sep;29(5):861-70
references.pmid: 14516219
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 May;36(2):277-90
references.pmid: 15354694
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Oct;16(5):798-817
references.pmid: 19815782