Individual differences in event-based prospective memory: Evidence for multiple processes supporting cue detection

Brewer, Gene A.; Knight, Jasper; Marsh, Richard L.; Unsworth, Nash · 2010 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/mc.38.3.304

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 cognitive processes underlying event-based prospective memory, specifically testing the "multiprocess view" which posits that cue detection relies on different mechanisms depending on cue specificity. The central research question examines whether working memory capacity influences the detection of focal cues (which align with ongoing task processing) versus nonfocal cues (which require controlled attention). Prior research had produced inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between working memory and prospective memory, often failing to distinguish between cue types. This study aims to resolve these inconsistencies by employing an individual differences approach to determine if controlled attention is necessary for nonfocal cue detection but not for focal cue detection. The researchers recruited 60 participants from the University of Georgia, categorizing them into high and low working memory capacity groups based on composite scores from operation span and reading span tasks. Participants performed a lexical decision task as the ongoing activity. They were assigned to either a focal condition, where they had to respond to a specific word (e.g., "PACKET"), or a nonfocal condition, where they had to respond to any word containing a specific syllable (e.g., "TOR"). The study measured cue detection rates and reaction times to assess task interference. The design allowed for a direct comparison of how working memory capacity affected performance across these two distinct cue types. The results revealed a significant interaction between working memory capacity and cue type. Participants with high and low working memory performed equally well on the focal task, indicating that spontaneous retrieval processes were sufficient for detection regardless of cognitive capacity. However, on the nonfocal task, participants with high working memory detected significantly more cues than those with low working memory. Additionally, reaction time analyses showed that holding a nonfocal intention slowed ongoing task performance for all participants, whereas focal intentions did not cause significant slowing. Crucially, low working memory participants exhibited significantly slower response times when detecting the first nonfocal cue compared to high working memory participants, suggesting greater difficulty in retrieving the target action. These findings provide strong empirical support for the multiprocess view of prospective memory. The study concludes that focal cue detection can occur via spontaneous retrieval without requiring controlled attention, explaining why working memory capacity does not differentiate performance in these conditions. In contrast, nonfocal cue detection requires controlled attentional resources, which are limited in individuals with lower working memory capacity. This distinction clarifies previous conflicting literature by demonstrating that the reliance on working memory is contingent on the specificity of the cue. The implications suggest that successful intention fulfillment depends on the alignment between cue features and ongoing task processing, with controlled attention serving as a critical resource only when such alignment is absent.

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
• cognitive capacity variation