Commission errors in delay-execute prospective memory tasks

The role of cue salience in prospective memory commission errors in nonperformed nonfocal tasks

Prospective memory (PM) refers to the ability to remember to execute an intention in the future without having a permanent reminder. These intentions can be performed when they are not relevant or become no-longer needed, the so-called "commission errors". The present study aims to understand the effect of cue salience on PM commission errors with unperformed intentions and on the ongoing task performance-associated costs. Through a between-subjects design, eighty-one participants were assigned to 3 conditions: the no-PM condition, which served as control, and the salient and nonsalient conditions, which were asked to perform a lexical decision task and an incomplete nonfocal prospective memory task (i.e. no PM cues were presented). Subsequently, participants were instructed to no longer execute the prospective intention. In the second phase, a lexical decision task occurred again, including irrelevant PM cues, which should not be answered as such. In the salient condition, cues were salient (i.e. presented in red or blue background). In contrast, in the nonsalient condition, PM cues appeared on a black background, as any other stimuli. In the no-PM control condition, participants only performed an LDT. A commission error occurred when the (irrelevant) intention was performed in this second phase. Results showed that more participants performed a commission error in the presence of salient cues, even when PM intentions became irrelevant. Additionally, when cues were not salient, participants took longer to answer the LDT, as reasoned by the spontaneous retrieval theory. These findings are discussed according to the dual-mechanism account.

The Effect of Implementation Intentions on Prospective Memory Commission Errors under Different Cognitive Loads

Prospective memory (PM) refers to the ability to remember to perform a planned event or activity at a specific time or situation in the future. Implementation intentions can promote a connection between PM cues and intended actions, thus improving an individual's PM performance. However, this simple and effective encoding strategy may also have negative effects. For example, an implementation intention may result in PM commission errors that occur when an individual makes a false PM response to repeated PM cues that are no longer relevant as the PM task has been completed. Existing studies have explored the effect of implementation intentions on PM commission errors under low cognitive load. However, the role of implementation intentions in promoting linkages between PM cues and actions tends to disintegrate under high cognitive loads. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the effect of implementation intentions on PM commission errors under different cognitive load conditions. In this study, 58 college students participated in a mixed experimental design of 2 (encoding methods: implementation intention, standard) × 2 (cognitive load conditions: low, high). The results showed that implementation intentions promoted PM commission errors under the low-cognitive-load condition only, and there was no difference in the performance of ongoing tasks between the implementation intention encoding and the standard encoding conditions. However, individuals in the implementation intention condition reacted more slowly when encountering previous PM cues. The results suggest that the effect of implementation intentions on PM commission errors relies upon automated processing as a whole. However, individuals in the implementation intention condition required more attentional resources to suppress the no-longer-relevant intended actions when previous PM cues appeared, supporting the dual-mechanism theory.

Deactivation of prospective memory intentions: Examining the role of the stimulus-response link

Successful prospective remembering involves formation of a stimulus (e.g., bottle of medication and/or place where the bottle is kept)-response (e.g., taking a medication) link. We investigated the role of this link in the deactivation of no-longer-relevant prospective memory intentions, as evidenced by commission error risk. Experiment 1a contrasted two hypotheses of intention deactivation (degree of fulfillment and response frequency) by holding constant the degree of intention fulfillment (e.g., participants responded to one of two target words) while manipulating the number of times the intention was performed. Findings supported the response frequency hypothesis. Experiment 1b employed novel lure trials to examine what "stimulus" participants link the prospective memory response to-target words and/or the salient contextual cue-and compared commission errors to Experiment 1a. Findings suggested the salient context alone does not always function as the stimulus. Collectively these findings, in conjunction with those of Experiment 2 (a within-experiment replication) and a combined analysis, suggest that (a) intention deactivation is facilitated by prior responding (formation/strengthening of stimulus-response links), but additional research is needed to establish the robustness of this effect, and (b) when responding frequently to targets, participants are more likely to bind the response to the context alone than to the target or target/context combination, possibly because they learn to rely on context to predict target occurrence. The latter finding was robust and indicates that deactivation of the appropriate stimulus (target and/or context)-response link may be a critical component of reducing commission errors.

From retrospective to prospective memory research: a framework for investigating the deactivation of intentions

The definition of episodic memory has evolved into a multifaceted concept that gathered great attention in several research areas in psychology and neuroscience. Prospective memory (PM), or the ability to remember to perform delayed intentions at a later moment in the future, represents one side of this capacity for which that has been a growing interest. In this review, we examined a counterintuitive finding: PM intentions may persist and affect our behaviour despite successful goal attainment and task completion, which in daily life may be as serious as taking medication twice. This review aims to elucidate the existing knowledge and identify some unresolved questions concerning this specific memory failure. Therefore, this review provides an overview of the uprising research dedicated to both PM omission and commission errors, including an analysis of its definitions, of the current theoretical approaches of PM retrieval, and the main procedures used in this field to offer an integrative perspective on this topic. Finally, the last section is devoted to discussing future directions to test the predictions of our suggested theoretical explanations for PM deactivation. This might be an avenue for research that is likely to extend our understanding of episodic memory's usefulness in everyday life.

Aftereffects and deactivation of completed prospective memory intentions: A systematic review

Prospective memory, the ability to perform an intended action in the future, is an essential aspect of goal-directed behavior. Intentions influence our behavior and shape the way we process and interact with our environment. One important question for research on prospective memory and goal-directed behavior is whether this influence stops after the intention has been completed successfully. Are intention representations deactivated from memory after their completion, and if so, how? Here, we systematically review 20 years of research on intention deactivation and so-called aftereffects of completed intentions across different research fields to offer an integrative perspective on this topic. We first introduce the currently dominant accounts of aftereffects (inhibition vs. retrieval) and illustrate the paradigms, findings, and interpretations that these accounts developed from. We then review the evidence for each account based on the extant research in these paradigms. While early studies proposed a rapid deactivation or even inhibition of completed intentions, more recent studies mostly suggested that intentions continue to be retrieved even after completion and interfere with subsequent performance. Although these accounts of aftereffects seem mutually exclusive, we will show that they might be two sides of the same coin. That is, intention deactivation and the occurrence of aftereffects are modulated by a multitude of factors that either foster a rapid deactivation or lead to continued retrieval of completed intentions. Lastly, we outline future directions and novel experimental procedures for research on mechanisms and modulators of intention deactivation and discuss practical implications of our findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

When we must forget: the effect of cognitive load on prospective memory commission errors

Recent studies consistently show that prospective memory (PM) intentions are not always deactivated when no-longer needed and might be erroneously performed upon encountering the once relevant cue - termed PM commission errors. However, empirical evidence on the potential mechanisms that might lead to this kind of memory failure remains mostly unexplored. This study aimed to investigate the influence of the ongoing task demands on PM deactivation of non-performed intentions. Younger adults, except for those in the no-PM condition, were asked to perform a PM task and were then told that the intention was finished. Later, they perform a lexical decision task with some trials containing (irrelevant) PM cues while simultaneously carrying out a counting recall task with two levels of difficulty. The results showed a higher risk of PM commission errors under moderate cognitive load (74%) as compared to the no-load condition (40%). Results also show that commission error risk did not increase in the high-load (54%) compared with the moderate-load condition. Furthermore, comparisons of the ongoign task performance between the no-PM condition and the other conditions with a PM task requirement support that commission errors might arise from a spontaneous PM retrieval. The implications of these findings are discussed within the dual-mechanisms account.

Commission errors with forced response lag

It is often necessary to retrieve intentions once a certain cue occurs in the environment. However, such prospective memory (PM) tasks can also be erroneously recalled even though they are no longer relevant and may result in commission errors. According to the dual mechanism account, commission errors occur because the intention is spontaneously retrieved, and there is a subsequent failure to suppress the associated action, resulting in erroneous instant execution. In three experiments, we tested whether failed response suppression is a prerequisite for commission errors. We set up a response lag condition in which participants had to delay their response to ongoing task trials for 1 s (Experiment 1) or 2 s (Experiments 2 and 3) and a pause condition in which the delay occurred between ongoing task trials. In both conditions, participants learned about a PM task and were then told that the PM task was cancelled. In addition, a control group with response lag executed the PM task and was subsequently told the task was finished. Later, all participants encountered several irrelevant PM cues. If failed response suppression is a prerequisite for commission errors, commission error rates should be non-existent in the response lag conditions, because participants had designated time to suppress the PM action. However, commission errors occurred at an equal rate in all lag and pause conditions. Due to this contradiction to the dual mechanism account, we suggest that the process for commission error occurrence should be reconsidered. Because commission errors appear not to be caused by failed response suppression, we discuss the idea that erroneous intentions might be formed when encountering the former PM cue and persist over delays between formation and execution.

Individual differences in episodic memory abilities predict successful prospective memory output monitoring

Output monitoring refers to memory for one's previously completed actions. In the context of prospective memory (PM) (e.g., remembering to take medication), failures of output monitoring can result in repetitions and omissions of planned actions (e.g., over- or under-medication). To be successful in output monitoring paradigms, participants must flexibly control attention to detect PM cues as well as engage controlled retrieval of previous actions whenever a particular cue is encountered. The current study examined individual differences in output monitoring abilities in a group of younger adults differing in attention control (AC) and episodic memory (EM) abilities. The results showed that AC ability uniquely predicted successful cue detection on the first presentation, whereas EM ability uniquely predicted successful output monitoring on the second presentation. The current study highlights the importance of examining external correlates of PM abilities and contributes to the growing body of research on individual differences in PM.

The effect of different distractions on remembering delayed intentions

In safety-critical domains, frequently intentions need to be delayed until an ongoing task is completed. Research using the delay-execute paradigm showed that interruptions during the delay cause forgetting. However, staff members often handle an initial distraction not by interrupting the ongoing task but by acknowledging the distraction or multitasking. In Experiments 1a and 1b, we observed that, compared to a no distraction condition, multitasking significantly decreased remembering of intentions and interrupting decreased remembering even further. In Experiment 2, interruptions with context change reduced remembering of intentions compared to uninterrupted delays, and at the same time, interruptions without context change improved memory performance compared to uninterrupted delays. However, improved memory performance resulted in decreased interrupting task performance. Theoretically, the results support the contextual cueing mechanism of delay-execute tasks. Considering safety-critical domains, multitasking, interruptions and context changes can contribute to forgetting of tasks.