Whoops I Did It Again Scullin 2012

doi: 10.1037/a0026112. Epub 2011 Nov xiv.

Whoops, I did it again: commission errors in prospective retentiveness

Affiliations

• PMID: 22082015
• PMCID: PMC3295914
• DOI: ten.1037/a0026112

Free PMC article

Whoops, I did information technology again: committee errors in prospective memory

Michael Chiliad Scullin  et al. Psychol Aging. 2012 Mar .

Free PMC article

Abstract

Prospective memory research almost exclusively examines remembering to execute an intention, only the ability to forget completed intentions may be similarly of import. We had younger and older adults perform a prospective memory task (press Q when yous see corn or dancer) and then told them that the intention was completed. Participants later performed a lexical-decision task (Stage 2) in which the prospective retentiveness cues reappeared. Initial prospective memory performance was similar betwixt age groups, just older adults were more likely than younger adults to press Q during Phase 2 (i.due east., commission errors). This study provides the commencement experimental sit-in of event-based prospective memory commission errors after all prospective memory tasks are finished and identifies multiple factors that increment risk for commission errors.

Figures

Figure 1

Depiction of the process used. Participants encode the prospective memory chore and subsequently a delay they perform it in Stage 1. They then receive instructions that the task is finished, and post-obit a filibuster, come across their no-longer-relevant prospective retention cues in Stage two.

Figure two

Proportion of younger and older adults who fabricated a committee error beyond cue salience and ongoing-task match atmospheric condition. The results from the nonsalient-cue/chore-mismatch condition were adapted from Scullin et al. (in printing).

Similar articles

• Committee errors in delay-execute prospective memory tasks.

  Schaper P, Grundgeiger T. Schaper P, et al. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Aug;70(viii):1423-1438. doi: x.1080/17470218.2016.1187182. Epub 2016 Jun 7. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017. PMID: 27172855

• The effects of historic period and focality on filibuster-execute prospective retentiveness.

  Kelly AJ, Hertzog C, Hayes MG, Smith AD. Kelly AJ, et al. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2013;20(i):101-24. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2012.691152. Epub 2012 May 29. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2013. PMID: 22639931 Free PMC article.

• Failing to forget: prospective retention commission errors tin issue from spontaneous retrieval and impaired executive control.

  Scullin MK, Bugg JM. Scullin MK, et al. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 May;39(3):965-71. doi: 10.1037/a0029198. Epub 2012 Jul 16. J Exp Psychol Larn Mem Cogn. 2013. PMID: 22799284 Costless PMC commodity.

• Suicidal Ideation.

  Harmer B, Lee S, Duong TVH, Saadabadi A. Harmer B, et al. 2021 Aug six. In: StatPearls [Cyberspace]. Treasure Isle (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 January–. 2021 Aug vi. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan–. PMID: 33351435 Free Books & Documents.

• [Age-prospective memory-paradox: explanatory hypotheses].

  Azzopardi B, Auffray C, Juhel J. Azzopardi B, et al. Geriatr Psychol Neuropsychiatr Vieil. 2015 Mar;thirteen(1):64-72. doi: 10.1684/pnv.2014.0513. Geriatr Psychol Neuropsychiatr Vieil. 2015. PMID: 25786425 Review. French.

Cited by 25 articles

• Dissociating sub-processes of aftereffects of completed intentions and costs to the ongoing task in prospective memory: A mouse-tracking arroyo.

  Kurtz M, Scherbaum S, Walser M, Kanske P, Möschl M. Kurtz M, et al. Mem Cognit. 2022 Feb 25. doi: x.3758/s13421-022-01289-z. Online ahead of print. Mem Cognit. 2022. PMID: 35212979

• Using smartphone technology to improve prospective memory operation: A randomized controlled trial.

  Scullin MK, Jones Nosotros, Phenis R, Beevers S, Rosen S, Dinh M, Kiselica A, Keefe FJ, Benge JF. Scullin MK, et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Feb;70(2):459-469. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17551. Epub 2021 Nov 17. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022. PMID: 34786698 Clinical Trial.

• Performance on the processing portion of complex working retention span tasks is related to working retentivity capacity estimates.

  Richmond LL, Burnett LK, Morrison AB, Ball BH. Richmond LL, et al. Behav Res Methods. 2021 Aug five. doi: x.3758/s13428-021-01645-y. Online ahead of print. Behav Res Methods. 2021. PMID: 34355351

• From retrospective to prospective retentiveness research: a framework for investigating the deactivation of intentions.

  Matos P, Albuquerque Lead. Matos P, et al. Cogn Procedure. 2021 Aug;22(3):411-434. doi: 10.1007/s10339-021-01016-7. Epub 2021 Mar x. Cogn Procedure. 2021. PMID: 33694121 Review.

• How Does Performing Demanding Activities Influence Prospective Retentivity? A Systematic Review.

  Matos P, Pereira DR, Albuquerque Atomic number 82, Santos FH. Matos P, et al. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2020 Sep 23;sixteen(3):268-290. doi: x.5709/acp-0302-0. eCollection 2020. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2020. PMID: 33149797 Gratuitous PMC commodity.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • American Psychological Association
  • Europe PubMed Cardinal
  • Ovid Technologies, Inc.
  • PubMed Central

• Medical

  • MedlinePlus Health Information

gregorysamalmot.blogspot.com

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22082015/

Share this post