A thorough examination of cue specificity and task-appropriateness in defining focal and nonfocal prospective memory tasks.
Prospective memory (PM) – memory for future intentions – has a core term called focality which describes how closely a PM task relates to an ongoing task. When a close relationship exists between an ongoing and PM task, the task is classified as focal (loose relationships are classified as nonfocal)...
| Publicado en: | Memory Vol. 31; no. 5; pp. 665 - 678 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts randomized controlled trial Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
May2023
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=163249814&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 163249814 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09658211 BAY jtl: Memory issn: 09658211 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: May2023 vid: 31 iid: 5 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 163249814 162572017 163249814 163249814 10.1080/09658211.2023.2187335 163249814 ppf: 665 ppct: 13 formats: tig: atl: A thorough examination of cue specificity and task-appropriateness in defining focal and nonfocal prospective memory tasks. aug: au: Lyon, Bethany A. Hicks, Jason L. affil: Psychology Department, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA sug: subj: Memory Evaluation Memory and Learning Tests Methods Cues Task Performance and Analysis Sensitivity and Specificity Evaluation Human Randomized Controlled Trials Random Assignment Validity Mental Processes Psychological Theory Students, Undergraduate Judgment Descriptive Statistics Chi Square Test Analysis of Variance ab: Prospective memory (PM) – memory for future intentions – has a core term called focality which describes how closely a PM task relates to an ongoing task. When a close relationship exists between an ongoing and PM task, the task is classified as focal (loose relationships are classified as nonfocal). Competing PM theories differ primarily in explanations for how focality changes participants' approaches. Researchers classify PM intentions as focal or nonfocal in two ways: (1) task appropriateness, congruency (TAP) or incongruency (TIP) of processing to complete both tasks, and (2) cue specificity, specific or general task cues. Independently manipulating this ambiguity in defining "focality" was our current focus. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group, a focal PM condition, or one of three nonfocal conditions. Their ongoing task involved a semantic judgment (Experiment 1) or an orthographic judgment (Experiment 2). Cue specificity impacted PM accuracy consistently, favouring specific cues. Task-appropriateness impacted PM accuracy in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2 which showed protective effects for specific, whole-word PM cues – emphasizing the role that deeper processing has on PM success. These studies highlight the ambiguity in the operational definition of focality and provide the groundwork for continued refinement of the definition. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts randomized controlled trial Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|