Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes?
Fuente:
Redalyc
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo científico |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
Universitat de València
2001
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1876479253319516160 |
|---|---|
| author | Maria A. Brandimonte |
| author_facet | Maria A. Brandimonte |
| contents | Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes? Maria A. Brandimonte Donatella Ferrante Catina Feresin Raffaella Delbello Psicología automaticity prospective memory vigilance processes In two experiments, we explored whether the retrieval processes underlyingevent-based prospective memory can be distinguished from those underlyingvigilance. Participants performed an ongoing task (either a lexical decisiontask, Experiment 1 and 3, or a categorization task, Experiment 2) while atthe same time they had to remember to stop performing the ongoing taskwhenever a particular target-stimulus appeared on the computer screen(background task). There were two target stimuli, each appearing 4 timesacross the ongoing task. Instructions and training induced participants toencode the background task either as a prospective memory task or as avigilance task. Results revealed important processing differences betweenprospective memory and vigilance processes. The time to respond to theongoing task was systematically slower in the vigilance than in theprospective memory conditions. However, prospective memory conditionsdid not differ from control (ongoing task only). Accuracy in the backgroundtask complemented RT data in the ongoing task in that more errors wereobserved in the prospective condition as compared to the vigilancecondition. The differences were not due to a speed-accuracy trade-offbetween the ongoing and the background tasks, nor to the differences intraining. Most important, repetition priming was observed across the fourtarget presentations in the prospective memory condition but not in thevigilance condition. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that eventbasedprospective memory and vigilance processes differ as to the degree ofconscious monitoring that they require, with prospective memory beingbased more on automatic retrieval of the cue-action association and vigilancebeing based more on active search for the target. 2001 artículo científico 0211-2159 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16922106 en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=169 Psicológica application/pdf Universitat de València Psicológica (España) Num.1 Vol.22 |
| format | Artículo científico |
| id | redalyc_16922106 |
| institution | Redalyc |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 2001 |
| publisher | Universitat de València |
| spellingShingle | Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes? Maria A. Brandimonte Psicología automaticity prospective memory vigilance processes Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes? Maria A. Brandimonte Donatella Ferrante Catina Feresin Raffaella Delbello Psicología automaticity prospective memory vigilance processes In two experiments, we explored whether the retrieval processes underlyingevent-based prospective memory can be distinguished from those underlyingvigilance. Participants performed an ongoing task (either a lexical decisiontask, Experiment 1 and 3, or a categorization task, Experiment 2) while atthe same time they had to remember to stop performing the ongoing taskwhenever a particular target-stimulus appeared on the computer screen(background task). There were two target stimuli, each appearing 4 timesacross the ongoing task. Instructions and training induced participants toencode the background task either as a prospective memory task or as avigilance task. Results revealed important processing differences betweenprospective memory and vigilance processes. The time to respond to theongoing task was systematically slower in the vigilance than in theprospective memory conditions. However, prospective memory conditionsdid not differ from control (ongoing task only). Accuracy in the backgroundtask complemented RT data in the ongoing task in that more errors wereobserved in the prospective condition as compared to the vigilancecondition. The differences were not due to a speed-accuracy trade-offbetween the ongoing and the background tasks, nor to the differences intraining. Most important, repetition priming was observed across the fourtarget presentations in the prospective memory condition but not in thevigilance condition. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that eventbasedprospective memory and vigilance processes differ as to the degree ofconscious monitoring that they require, with prospective memory beingbased more on automatic retrieval of the cue-action association and vigilancebeing based more on active search for the target. 2001 artículo científico 0211-2159 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16922106 en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=169 Psicológica application/pdf Universitat de València Psicológica (España) Num.1 Vol.22 |
| title | Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes? |
| topic | Psicología automaticity prospective memory vigilance processes |
| url | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16922106 |