바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
 

logo

단서-의도 간 연합 강도와 단서 출현 빈도가 미래계획기억 수행에 미치는 효과

The Effects of Cue-Intention Association and Target Frequency on Prospective Memory Performance

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.1, pp.55-67
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.1.004
장미숙 (가톨릭대학교)
박영신 (가톨릭대학교)
김기중 (가톨릭대학교)
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

본 연구는 단서-의도 간 연합 강도와 단서 출현 빈도가 미래계획기억(prospective memory) 수행에 미치는 효과를 탐색하고자 계획되었다. 총 230명의 대학생 참가자가 사건-기반 미래계획기억 패러다임을 사용한 두 개의 실험에 참여하였다. 단서-의도 간 연합 강도는 지시단계에서 제공되었던 PM 목표단어들의 일부를 교체하는 방식으로 참가자 내 변인으로 조작되었다. 단서 출현 빈도는 동시과제가 진행되는 동안 목표단어들이 제시되는 횟수를 통해 참가자 간 변인으로 조작되었으며, 목표단어들은 한 번 제시되거나 세 번 제시되었다. 두 실험 결과들은 모두 동일하게 나타났다. 먼저 단서-의도 간 연합 강도가 약한 조건보다 강한 조건에서 PM 정확률이 높았다. 단서 출현 빈도의 결과는 연합 강도 조건에 따라 상이하게 나타났다. 단서-의도 간 연합 강도가 약한 조건에서는 단서가 반복 제시되면 PM 정확률이 높아진 반면, 연합 강도가 강한 조건에서는 단서 반복 제시 조건에 따라 PM 정확률에 차이가 없었다. 본 실험 결과는 부호화 단계에서 단서-의도 간 강한 연합이 PM을 성공적으로 수행하는 데 중요한 요인이며, 부호화 시에 단서-의도 간 연합 강도가 약하더라도 과제를 수행하는 동안 단서가 반복 제시되면 PM 수행을 개선시킬 수 있는 가능성을 시사하였다. PM을 수행하는 과정에서 단서에 대한 자발적 인출 과정이 PM 수행에 미칠 수 있는 효과에 대한 이론적 논의가 제안되었다.

keywords
미래계획기억, 단서-의도 간 연합 강도, 단서 출현빈도, 자발적 인출, prospective memory, cue-intention association, target frequency, spontaneous retrieval

Abstract

The present study was aimed to investigate the effect of cue-intention association and target frequency on prospective memory performance. Total 230 undergraduates participated in two experiments administered with EBPM paradigm. The association between cue-intention was manipulated within subjects by altering half of target words. The frequency of target presentation was manipulated between subjects. Half of participants were randomly assigned in 3 times presentation condition and the other half of participants were in one time condition. Results of two experiment remained steady. Participants showed higher accurate response rates with strongly associated cue-intention target words than with weak targets. There was a two way interaction between cue-intention association and target frequency. In weakly associated cue-target condition, participants performed better with 3 times target presentation than with just one time presentation. When the association was weak, no difference was observed between frequency conditions. These findings suggest that the repetition of target appearance can simply improve prospective memory performance even though the association between cue-intention was poor formed at encoding phase. Theoretical implications were also discussed with respect to spontaneous retrieval in prospective memory.

keywords
미래계획기억, 단서-의도 간 연합 강도, 단서 출현빈도, 자발적 인출, prospective memory, cue-intention association, target frequency, spontaneous retrieval

참고문헌

1.

Albiński, R., Kliegel, M., & Gurynowicz, K. (2016). The influence of high and low cue-action association on prospective memory performance. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 707-717.

2.

Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18-29.

3.

Burgess, P. W., Gonen-Yaacovi, G., & Volle, E. (2011). Functional neuroimaging studies of prospective memory:What have we learnt so far? Neuropsychologia, 49, 2185-2198.

4.

Cohen, A. L., Dixon, R. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2005). The intention interference effect and aging: Similar magnitude of effects for young and old adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1177-1197.

5.

Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 671-684.

6.

Czernochowski, D., Horn, S., & Bayen, U. J. (2012). Does frequency matter? ERP and behavioral correlated of monitoring for rare and frequent prospective memory targets. Neuropsychologia, 50, 67-76.

7.

Dagenbach, D., Horst, S., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Adding new information to semantic memory: How much learning is enough to produce automatic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 581-591.

8.

Dobbs, A. R., & Reeves, M. B. (1996). Prospective memory:More than memory. In M. Brandimote, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and application, (pp. 199-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9.

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Retrieval processes in prospective memory: Theoretical approaches and some new empirical findings. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Enstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Einstein, G. O. (2014). Remembering to perform actions in the future: Can intentions pop into mind?. Journal of the South Carolina Academy of Science, 12, 4-7.

11.

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717-726.

12.

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290.

13.

Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., & Breneiser, J. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327-342.

14.

Ellis, J., Kvavilashvili, L., & Milne, A. (1999). Experimental tests of prospective remembering: The influence of cue-event frequency on performance. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 9-23.

15.

Fischler, I. (1977). Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task. Memory & Cognition, 5, 335-339.

16.

Freeman, J. E., & Ellis, J. A. (2003). The intention-superiority effect for naturally occurring activities: The role of intention accessibility in everyday prospective remembering in young and older adults. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 215-228.

17.

Goschke, T. & Kuhl, J. (1996). Remembering what to do:Explicit and implicit memory for intentions. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein & M. A. McDaniel (Eds), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 53-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Guynn, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Target preexposure eliminates the effect of distraction on event-based prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 484-488.

19.

Jung, Y. J., Jang, M. S., Kim, K. J. (2013). The effect of emotional valence on retrieval-induced forgetting. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 25, 45-60.

20.

Loft, S., & Yeo, G. (2007). An investigation into the resource requirements of event- based prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 263-274.

21.

Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bink, M. L. (1998). Activation of completed, uncompleted, and partially completed intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 350-361.

22.

Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Bryan, E. S. (1999). The activation of unrelated and canceled intentions. Memory &Cognition, 27, 320-327.

23.

Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Watson, V. (2002). The dynamics of intention retrieval and coordination of action in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 652-659.

24.

Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., Hansen, J. S., & Pallos, A. L. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, &Cognition, 29, 861-870.

25.

Maylor, E. A., Darby, R. J., & Della Sala, S. (2000). Retrieval of performed versus to-be-performed tasks: A naturalistic study of the intention superiority effect in normal aging and dementia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S83-S98.

26.

McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 127-144.

27.

McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

McDaniel, M. A., Bugg, J. M., Ramuschkat, G. M., Kliegel, M., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). Repetition errors in habitual prospective memory: Elimination of Age differences via complex actions or appropriate resource allocation. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 16, 563-588.

29.

McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O., & Breneiser, J. (2004). Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 605-614.

30.

McDaniel, M. A., Robinson-Riegler, B., & Einstein, G. O. (1998). Prospective remembering: Perceptually driven or conceptually-driven processes?. Memory & Cognition, 26, 121-134.

31.

Park, D. C., & Kidder, D. (1996). Prospective memory and medication adherence. In M. Brandimonte, G. O. Einstein, & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Prospective memory: Theory and applications (pp. 369-390). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

32.

Pereira, A., Ellis, J., & Freeman, J. (2012). Is prospective memory enhanced by cue-action semantic relatedness and enactment at encoding?. Consciousness & Cognition, 21, 1257-1266.

33.

Pink, J. E. (2012). Prospective memory commission error:Unintentionally completing formerly held intentions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations &Theses Global database (Order No. 3530505)

34.

Pink, J. E., & Dodson, C. S. (2013). Negative prospective memory: Remembering not to perform an action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 184-190.

35.

Rhee, K. Y. (1991). Datum: Korean Category Norms: Survey on Exemplar Frequency Norm, Typicality, and Features. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 3, 131-160.

36.

Rummel, J., Einstein, G. O., & Rampey, H. (2012). Implementation-intention encoding in a prospective memory task enhances spontaneous retrieval of intentions. Memory, 20, 803-817.

37.

Scullin, M. K., & Bugg, J. M. (2013). Failing to forget:Prospective memory commission errors and result from spontaneous retrieval and impaired executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 965-971.

38.

Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory:Monitoring difficulty of different retrieval processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 736-749.

39.

Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect:Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592-604.

40.

Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C., & McConnell, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 734-746.

41.

Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 347-361.

42.

Underwood, B. J., & Schulz, R. W. (1960). Meaningfulness and verbal learning. Oxford, England: J. B. Lippincott.

43.

Walser, M., Fischer, R., & Goschke, T. (2012). The failure of deactivating intentions: Aftereffects of completed intentions in the repeated prospective memory cue paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1030-1044.

44.

Walser, M., Plessow, F., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2014). The role of temporal delay and repeated prospective memory cue exposure on the deactivation of completed intentions. Psychological Research, 78(4), 584-596.

45.

Wilson, J., Cutmore, T. R. H., Wang, Y., Chan, R. C. K., & Shum, D. H. K. (2013). Effects of cue frequency and repetition on prospective memory: An ERP investigation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90, 250-257.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물