Abstract
Task interference occurs in prospective memory tasks when an intention deleteriously affects performance on an ongoing activity in some way. Several studies have shown that task interference can manifest itself in slower latencies to perform an ongoing task. Recent evidence demonstrates that associating intentions to certain performance contexts affects prospective memory performance (see, e.g., Cook, Marsh, & Hicks, 2005). In the present study, an intention was associated with a particular stimulus class, such as pictures or words. We found that task interference could be reduced when participants could reliably predict that the material about to be processed was irrelevant to the intention. This material- specific interference effect was found on a trial-by-trial basis in a random sequence of two different kinds of materials across two experiments and with blocking manipulation in another experiment. These results demonstrate that task interference is not a monolithic construct; rather, it results from dynamic and flexible attentional allocation strategies that can change on a trial-by-trial basis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L., &Hicks, J. L. (2005). Associating a timebased prospective memory task with an expected context can improve or impair intention completion.Applied Cognitive Psychology,19, 345–360.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Smith, R. E., &Shaw, P. (1998). Habitual prospective memory and aging: Remembering intentions and forgetting actions.Psychological Science,9, 284–289.
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.
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.
Guynn, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1998). Prospective memory: When reminders fail.Memory & Cognition,26, 287–298.
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 & Language,53, 430–444.
Marsh, R. L., Hancock, T. W., &Hicks, J. L. (2002). The demands of an ongoing activity influence the success of event-based prospective memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 604–610.
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, & Cognition,31, 68–75.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., &Cook, G. I. (2006). Task interference from prospective memories covaries with contextual associations of fulfilling them.Memory & Cognition,34, 1037–1045.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (in press). On beginning to understand the role of context in prospective memory. To appear in M. Kliegel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.),Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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, & Cognition,29, 861–870.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., & Mayhorn, C. B. (in press). Comparing older and younger adults in an event-based prospective memory paradigm containing an output monitoring component.Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Hancock, T. W., &Munsayac, K. (2002). Investigating the output monitoring component of event-based prospective memory performance.Memory & Cognition,30, 302–311.
Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., &Watson, V. (2002). The dynamics of intention retrieval and coordination of action in event-based prospective memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 652–659.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework.Applied Cognitive Psychology,14, S127-S144.
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, & Cognition,30, 605–614.
McDaniel, M. A., Robinson-Riegler, B., &Einstein, G. O. (1998). Prospective remembering: Perceptually driven or conceptually driven processes?Memory & Cognition,26, 121–134.
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.
Reese, C. M., &Cherry, K. E. (2002). The effects of age, ability, and memory monitoring on prospective memory task performance.Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition,9, 98–113.
Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in eventbased prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 347–361.
Smith, R. E., &Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of eventbased prospective memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 756–777.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
West, R., &Craik, F. I. M. (1999). Age-related decline in prospective memory: The roles of cue accessibility and cue sensitivity.Psychology & Aging,14, 264–272.
West, R., Krompinger, J., &Bowry, R. (2005). Disruptions of preparatory attention contribute to failures of prospective memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 502–507.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marsh, R.L., Cook, G.I. & Hicks, J.L. Task interference from event-based intentions. Memory & Cognition 34, 1636–1643 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195926
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195926