Abstract
Successful execution of an intention as planned is necessary for people's normal life. However, people sometimes even forget intentions that they consider as very important. Hence, the issues that whether prospective memory performance can be improved under high cognitive load tasks are worth discussing. In this study, we used a 2 (cognitive load: high or standard) × 2 (encoding modality: verbal or enactment encoding) mixed design to explore the effects of encoding modality and cognitive load of ongoing tasks on prospective memory. The results showed that the prospective memory performance under high cognitive load condition was significantly worse than that under standard cognitive load condition for verbal encoding condition. However, for enactment encoding condition, enactment encoding enhanced the performance and abolished the difference between high and low cognitive load effects on prospective memory. Strategic issues of prospective memory will be discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson FT, Einstein GO (2017) The fate of completed intentions. Memory 25(4):467–480
Ball BH, Bugg JM (2018) Aging and the strategic use of context to control prospective memory monitoring. Psychol Aging 33(3):527. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000247
Boag RJ, Strickland L, Loft S, Heathcote A (2019) Strategic attention and decision control support prospective memory in a complex dual-task environment. Cognition 191:103974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.011
Brandimonte MA, Einstein GO, McDaniel MA (eds) (2014) Prospective memory: theory and applications. Psychology Press, Hove
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
Cohen AL, Dixon RA, Lindsay DS, Masson MEJ (2003) The effect of perceptual distinctiveness on the prospective and retrospective components of prospective memory in young and old adults. Can J Exp Psychol 57:274–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087431
Cohen A-L, Jaudas A, Gollwitzer PM (2008) Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Mem Cognit 36(1):149–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.149
Cohen RL (1989) Memory for action events: the power of enactment. Educ Psychol Rev 1(1):57–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01326550
Cottini M, Meier B (2020) Prospective memory monitoring and aftereffects of deactivated intentions across the lifespan. Cogn Dev 53:100844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100844
Einstein GO, Holland LJ, McDaniel MA, Guynn MJ (1992) Age-related deficits in prospective memory: theinfluence of task complexity. Psychol Aging 7:471–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.471
Einstein GO, Mcdaniel MA, Manzi M, Cochran B, Baker M (2000) Prospective memory and aging: forgetting intentions over short delays. Psychol Aging 15(4):671–683. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.4.671
Einstein GO, McDaniel MA, Thomas R, Mayfield S, Shank H, Morrisette N, Breneiser J (2005) Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. J Exp Psychol General 134:327–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327
Einstein GO, Smith RE, McDaniel MA, Shaw P (1997) Aging and prospective memory: the influence of increased task demands at encoding and retrieval. Psychol Aging 12(3):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.3.479
Ellis JA, Freeman J (2008) Ten years on: Realizing delayed intentions. In: Kliegel M, McDaniel MA (eds) Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives. Psychology Press, New York, pp 1–27
Engelkamp J (1995) Visual imagery and enactment of actions in memory. Br J Psychol 86(2):227–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02558.x
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Freeman JE, Ellis JA (2003) The intention-superiority effect for naturally occurring activities: the role of intention accessibility in everyday prospective remembering in young and older adults. Int J Psychol 38(4):215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000141
GuoY, G, J., Zhang Z, Huang T, Chen Y (2015) The effects of encoding eypes, cognitive loading, and number of cues on prospective memory. J Psychol Sci 39(5):1058–1063. https://www.psysci.org/CN/Y2016/V39/I5/1058
Guynn MJ (2008) Theory of monitoring in prospective memory: Instantiating a retrieval mode and periodic target checking. In: Kliegel M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO (eds) Prospective memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives. Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Milton Park, pp 53–76
Haas M, Zuber S, Kliegel M, Ballhausen N (2020) PM errors in everyday life:does instruction matter? Memory 28(2):196–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1707227
Jones WE, Benge JF, Scullin MK (2021) Preserving prospective memory in daily life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mnemonic strategy, cognitive training, external memory aid, and combination interventions. Neuropsychology 35(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000704
Kidder DP, Park DC, Hertzog C, Morrell RW (1997) Prospective memory and aging: The effects of working memory and prospective memory task load. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 4(2):93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589708256639
Kliegel M, McDaniel MA, Einstein GO (2000) Plan formation, retention, and execution in prospective memory: a new approach and age-related effects. Mem Cognit 28(6):1041. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209352
Kormi-nouri R (1995) The nature of memory for action events: An episodic integration view. J Cogn Psychol 7(4):337–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449508403103
Li G, Wang L (2015) The effects of encoding modality and object presence on event-based prospective memory in seven- to nine-year-old children. J Cogn Psychol 27(6):725–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1030407
Loft S, Kearney R, Remington R (2008) Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? Mem Cognit 36(1):139. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.139
Logie R, Maylor E, Sala SD, Smith G (2004) Working memory in event-and time-based prospective memory tasks: effects of secondary demand and age. Eur J Cogn Psychol 16(3):441–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000114
Marsh RL, Hancock TW, Hicks JL (2002) The demands of an ongoing activity influence the success of event-based prospective memory. Psychon Bull Rev 9(3):604–610. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196319
Marsh RL, Hicks JL (1998) Event-based prospective memory and executive control of working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 24(2):336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.336
Marsh RL, Hicks JL, Cook GI, Hansen JS, Pallos AL (2003) Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cognit 29(5):861–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.861
McDaniel MA, Einstein GO (2000) Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Appl Cogn Psychol Mem Cogn 14(7):S127–S144
McDaniel MA, Einstein GO, Graham T, Rall E (2004) Delaying execution of intentions: overcoming the costs of interruptions. Appl Cogn Psychol 18(5):533–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1002
McDaniel MA, Howard DC, Butler KM (2008) Execution intentions facilitate prospective memory under high attention demands. Mem Cognit 36(4):716–724. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.716
McDaniel MA, Scullin MK (2010) Execution intention encoding does not automatize prospective memory responding. Mem Cognit 38(2):221–232. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.716
McDaniel MA, Umanath S, Einstein GO, Waldum ER (2015) Dual pathways to prospective remembering. Front Hum Neurosci 9:392. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00392
Mecklenbräuker S, Steffens MC, Jelenec P, Goergens NK (2011) Interactive context integration in children? Evidence from an action memory study. J Exp Child Psychol 108(4):747–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.12.002
Meier B, Zimmermann TD (2015) Loads and loads and loads: the influence of prospective load, retrospective load, and ongoing task load in prospective memory. Front Hum Neurosci 9:322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00322
Mullet HG, Scullin MK, Hess TJ, Scullin RB, Arnold KM, Einstein GO (2013) Prospective memory and aging: Evidence for preserved spontaneous retrieval with exact but not related cues. Psychol Aging 28(4):910. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034347
Nilsson L-G (2000) Remembering actions and words. In: Tulving E, Craik FIM (eds) The Oxford handbook of memory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 137–148
Passolunghi MC, Brandimonte MA, Cornoldi C (1995) Encoding modality and prospective memory in children. Int J Behav Dev 18(4):631–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502549501800404
Pereira A, Altgassen M, Atchison L, De Mendonça A, Ellis J (2018) Sustaining prospective memory functioning in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: A lifespan approach to the critical role of encoding. Neuropsychology 32(5):634. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000441
Pereira A, De-Mendonça A, Silva D, Guerreiro M, Freeman J, Ellis J (2015) Enhancing prospective memory in mild cognitive impairment: The role of enactment. J Clin & Exp Neuropsychol 37(8):863–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2015.1072499
Pereira A, Ellis J, Freeman J (2012a) Is prospective memory enhanced by cue-action semantic relatedness and enactment at encoding? Conscious Cogn 21(3):1257–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.04.012
Pereira A, Ellis JA, Freeman JE (2012b) The effects of age, enactment, and cue-action relatedness on memory for intentions in the Virtual Week task. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 19(5):549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.638977
Schaefer EG, Kozak MV, Sagness K (1998) The role of enactment in prospective remembering. Mem Cognit 26(4):644–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211384
Schatz TR, Spranger T, Kubik V, Knopf M (2011) Exploring the enactment effect from an information processing view: What can we learn from serial position analyses? Scand J Psychol 52(6):509–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00893.x
Schult JC, Steffens MC (2017) The effects of enactment and intention accessibility on prospective memory performance. Mem Cognit 45(4):625–638. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0677-9
Smith RE (2003) The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 29(3):347–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347
Smith RE, Bayen UJ (2004) A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 30(4):756–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.756
Smith RE, Bayen UJ (2006) The source of adult age differences in event-based prospective memory: a multinomial modeling approach. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 32:623–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.623
Smith RE, Hunt RR, Mcvay JC, Mcconnell MD (2007) The cost of event-based prospective memory: salient target events. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 33(4):734–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.734
Strickland L, Loft S, Heathcote A (2020) Investigating the effects of ongoing-task bias on prospective memory. Q J Exp Psychol 73(9):1495–1513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820914915
von Stülpnagel R, Steffens, MC, Schult JC (2016) Memory for five novel naturalistic activities: no memory recall advantage for enactment over observation or pictorial learning. J Artic Support Null Hypothesis 12(2):1539–8714
Woods SP, Weinborn M, Li YR, Hodgson E, Ng ARJ, Bucks RS (2015) Does prospective memory influence quality of life in community-dwelling older adults? Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 22(6):1. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2015.1027651
Zimmer HD, Helstrup T, Engelkamp J (2000) Pop-out into memory: a retrieval mechanism that is enhanced with the recall of subject-performed tasks. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 26(3):658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.658
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Youth foundation of Ministry of Education (19YJC190010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
The procedure performed in the study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethnic Committee of Jiangsu Normal University.
Informed consent
The informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling Editor: Valerio Santangelo (University of Perugia), Boris Suchan (Ruhr University Bochum); Reviewer: Jan Peters (University of Cologne).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, G., Li, M., Wang, J. et al. The effects of cognitive load and encoding modality on prospective memory. Cogn Process 23, 441–448 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01085-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01085-2