Attention Memory Of Prospective Memory

Plan and execution are closely linking with our lives, and it is also crucial that make correct proposed behaviors at the appropriate time and/or after specific events for our living, working and studying. Moreover the ability of executing planning intention behavior was named prospective memory, PM. Differ from other memory taxonomy PM is focus on future. Two forms of PM absorbed researchers’ attention, executing intention action on proper time, time-based PM, and performing after recognition of encoded cue, event-based PM. The event-based PM is the centre of this article. And there are three main theory frameworks for explaining the processing mechanism of event-based PM. Automatically processing theory, link of cue and presupposed action is emerged automatically, and individuals can retrieval the PM intention spontaneously and with null cost of cognitive resources, stimulus- driven and bottom-up. On the contrary, preparation of attention and memory theory framework told us that working memory and attention take parts in PM intention retrieval, and therefore PM would make cost of ongoing task, cognitive control and top-down. The third theory integrated the two mentioned hypothesizes, multiprocess framework. Both relatively automatically spontaneous retrieval and strategic monitoring retrieval make effect in intention behavior adopting, which is play the main role depend on properties of cues, age, ongoing task difficulties and so on. The multiprocess framework get amount of support from distinct researches. The found salient cues, focal cues can trigger spontaneous retrieval, their connection with intention was automatically; while nonfocal cues due to its lack relationship with goal action, procedure of dealing with them has more challenges, therefore they would induce cost of ongoing tasks.Previous researches rarely adopted one ongoing task which contained two kind of tasks comsuming two konds of resources, percetual and congnitive control. What would happen when we embedded salient cues in perceptual task, and emcbedded nonfocal cues into working memory task, respectively, we still had little idea. This research was aim to investigate the procedure which would support these two kinds of cues in the condition of process were overlapping with each’s ongoing task.The experiment was working memory load (2:high, low)×perception compatibility (3:compatible, incompatible, neutral) × PM cue types (4:salient cue, salient cue control, nonfocal, nonfocal control) mix-design. Among them working memory load and perception compatibility were with-subject variable, and PM cue types was between-subject variable. Based on this our experiment can be divided into four conditions:nonfocal condition (nonfocal cue, animal Chinese characters), nonfocal control condition (no PM instruction, animal Chinese characters), salient condition (salient cue, animal Chinese characters, cue letters in red), salient control condition (no PM instruction, animal Chinese characters, cue letters in red). The dependent variables were accuracy and response time of working memory task, selective attention task, and PM task. Result showed that salient cues has not induced cost on two kinds of ongoing tasks; however nonfocal cues has produced partial cost, specifically working memory has not suffered from PM task, while selective attention task was worse under nonfocal condition than under relevant control condition; salient cues was more efficacy than nonfocal cues; working memory load has effect on PM task.Our research support prospective memory multiprocess framework:two kinds of procedures refer to intention retrieval. Salient cues can spontaneous trigger intention, this was a stimulus-driven and bottom-up pattern. Meanwhile, strategic monitoring process was involved in nonfocal cues retrieval, it occupied attention and working memory capability that effect the ongoing task, in our experiment the intention interference effect was significant, and this was a cognitive control and top-down track.