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

Mello, Beatriz; Matos, Patrícia; Albuquerque, Pedro B. · 2024 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1007/s10339-024-01190-4

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the impact of cue salience on prospective memory (PM) commission errors, specifically within the context of nonperformed, nonfocal tasks. PM commission errors occur when individuals execute an intention that is no longer relevant or has been cancelled. While previous research has examined these errors in completed PM tasks, this study addresses a gap regarding intentions that were never fulfilled but became irrelevant. The authors aimed to determine if salient cues increase the likelihood of such errors and to assess the associated costs on ongoing task performance, testing predictions derived from the dual-mechanism account of PM. The experiment employed a between-subjects design with 75 participants assigned to three conditions: no-PM (control), salient PM, and nonsalient PM. Participants performed a lexical decision task (LDT) as the ongoing activity. In the experimental groups, participants were instructed to press a specific key when encountering target syllables, which served as PM cues. In the salient condition, cues appeared on red or blue backgrounds; in the nonsalient condition, they appeared on a black background, matching the ongoing stimuli. Crucially, no PM cues were presented during the active phase, creating an incomplete PM task. Participants were then instructed to cancel the PM intention. In the subsequent finished-PM phase, they performed the LDT again, which included the previously relevant PM cues. Commission errors were recorded if participants pressed the PM key despite the cancellation instruction. Results indicated that cue salience significantly influenced commission error rates. A higher percentage of participants in the salient condition (54%) committed at least one commission error compared to those in the nonsalient condition (23%), a difference supported by moderate Bayesian evidence. Additionally, the frequency of errors per participant was significantly higher in the salient group. Regarding ongoing task performance, participants in the nonsalient condition exhibited slower response times during the active-PM phase compared to both the salient and control groups, suggesting increased cognitive monitoring costs. However, during the finished-PM phase, response times did not differ significantly across conditions, and accuracy remained high throughout. These findings support the dual-mechanism theory, which posits that PM retrieval involves both strategic monitoring and spontaneous retrieval. The increased commission errors in the salient condition suggest that salient cues facilitate spontaneous retrieval of the intention, making it difficult to inhibit even after cancellation. Conversely, the slower response times in the nonsalient condition during the active phase indicate that nonsalient cues require more effortful strategic monitoring. The study concludes that unfulfilled intentions remain accessible in memory, and cue salience exacerbates the risk of executing these outdated intentions, highlighting the persistent nature of uncompleted PM goals.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• prospective memory interruptions