Retrieval in prospective memory: Multiple processes or just delay?
Retrieval in prospective memory: Multiple processes or just delay?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1747021819845622
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
McDaniel, Mark A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Anderson, Francis T.;McDaniel, Mark A.
在前瞻记忆（PM）研究中，一个常见的发现是，PM准确性更大使用焦点，而不是非焦点，线索。在多处理框架下，高PM性能的焦点线索（线索，促进注意的目标），往往在没有任务干扰，反映了人们的能力，依靠自发的检索过程。相比之下，非焦点线索（不便于注意的线索）需要监控。另一种解释认为，焦点性PM和非焦点性PM的基础是一个单一的过程：人们调整自己的延迟，以便让PM信息有足够的时间到达意识（延迟理论）。参与者较低的非焦点表现是因为他们没有足够程度地延迟响应;有了焦点线索，PM信息积累速度足够快，不需要延迟（因此大多数人都表现良好）。我们试图通过将具有快速信息积累的PM任务与所需信息积累较慢的正在进行的任务配对来提高非焦点PM性能。从延迟理论的推理，我们预计PM的准确性水平，在这个非焦点PM任务中观察到的焦点PM任务（PM任务是相同的）。与此预期相反，病灶条件显示出显著更高的PM准确性（尽管表现出可靠的更短的响应延迟）。根据这些发现，我们得出结论，多进程的解释是有利的。
In prospective memory (PM) research, a common finding is that PM accuracy is greater using focal, rather than nonfocal, cues. Under the multiprocess framework, the high PM performance for focal cues (cues that facilitate noticing of the target), often in the absence of task interference, reflects people's ability to rely on spontaneous retrieval processes. By contrast, nonfocal cues (cues that do not facilitate noticing) require monitoring. A competing explanation suggests that a single process underlies focal versus nonfocal PM: People adjust their delay in ongoing responding to allow enough time for PM information to reach awareness (delay theory). Participants' lower nonfocal performance arises because they fail to delay responding to a sufficient degree; with focal cues, the PM information accumulation rate is fast enough that no delay is necessary (and thus most everyone performs well). We sought to improve nonfocal PM performance by pairing a PM task with fast information accumulation to an ongoing task for which the requisite information accumulated more slowly. Reasoning from delay theory, we expected PM accuracy levels in this nonfocal PM task to approximate that observed in a focal PM task (for which the PM tasks were identical). In contrast to this expectation, the focal condition displayed significantly higher PM accuracy (despite demonstrating a reliably shorter response delay). In light of these findings, we concluded that the multiprocess interpretation is favoured.