Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
2010-5-4
pubmed:abstractText
We investigated whether focal/nonfocal effects (e.g., Einstein et al., 2005) in prospective memory (PM) are explained by cue differences in monitoring difficulty. In Experiment 1, we show that syllable cues (used in Einstein et al., 2005) are more difficult to monitor for than are word cues; however, initial-letter cues (in words) are similar in monitoring difficulty to word cues (Experiments 2a and 2b). Accordingly, in Experiments 3 and 4, we designated either an initial letter or a particular word as a PM cue in the context of a lexical decision task, a task that presumably directs attention to focal processing of words but not initial letters. We found that the nonfocal condition was more likely than the focal condition to produce costs to the lexical decision task (task interference). Furthermore, when task interference was minimal or absent, focal PM performance remained relatively high, whereas nonfocal PM performance was near floor (Experiment 4). Collectively, these results suggest that qualitatively different retrieval processes can support prospective remembering for focal versus nonfocal cues.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
May
pubmed:issn
1939-1285
pubmed:author
pubmed:copyrightInfo
PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
pubmed:issnType
Electronic
pubmed:volume
36
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
736-49
pubmed:dateRevised
2011-9-26
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2010
pubmed:articleTitle
Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA. mscullin@wustl.edu
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural