Cargando…

Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory

Event-based prospective memory (ProM) refers to remembering to execute planned actions in response to a target ProM cues. Encoding modality influences ProM performance; visual encoding has been studied more than auditory encoding. Further, it has not yet been examined whether different encoding may...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Youzhen, Zhang, Manman, Xin, Cong, Guo, Yunfei, Lin, Qin, Ma, Zhujun, Hu, Jinhui, Huang, Weiting, Liao, Qianfang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8818949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35140643
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701281
_version_ 1784645946442776576
author Chen, Youzhen
Zhang, Manman
Xin, Cong
Guo, Yunfei
Lin, Qin
Ma, Zhujun
Hu, Jinhui
Huang, Weiting
Liao, Qianfang
author_facet Chen, Youzhen
Zhang, Manman
Xin, Cong
Guo, Yunfei
Lin, Qin
Ma, Zhujun
Hu, Jinhui
Huang, Weiting
Liao, Qianfang
author_sort Chen, Youzhen
collection PubMed
description Event-based prospective memory (ProM) refers to remembering to execute planned actions in response to a target ProM cues. Encoding modality influences ProM performance; visual encoding has been studied more than auditory encoding. Further, it has not yet been examined whether different encoding may influence ProM performance in different encoding modalities. This study examines the effects of encoding modality (visual vs. auditory), cue-encoding specificity (specific cue vs. non-specific cue), and encoding modes (standard vs. implementation intention) on event-based ProM tasks. In Experiment 1, cue specificity and encoding modality were manipulated as a within-groups encoding of visual cues is more commonly and between-groups variable. Results revealed the facilitative effect of cue specificity on ProM performance. Also, with respect to encoding modality, participants showed better performance when receiving auditory instructions compared with the visual encoding condition. In Experiment 2, as in Experiment 1, cue specificity and encoding modality were manipulated. Encoding mode was added as a new between-group variable. Result revealed that there was a significant interaction between encoding modality and encoding modes. Visual implementation intention encoding was a more effective method for improving ProM performance compared with visual standard encoding. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between cue-encoding specificity and encoding modes. Implementation intention encoding enhances ProM performance in non-specific cue-encoding conditions. Overall, the present study found that (1) auditory encoding modality showed superior ProM performance compared with visual encoding, although implementation intention had facilitative on ProM performance regardless of the encoding modalities, and (2) there was better ProM performance under specific encoding compared with non-specific encoding, and implementation intention had a facilitative effect on ProM performance in the non-specific condition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8818949
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88189492022-02-08 Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory Chen, Youzhen Zhang, Manman Xin, Cong Guo, Yunfei Lin, Qin Ma, Zhujun Hu, Jinhui Huang, Weiting Liao, Qianfang Front Psychol Psychology Event-based prospective memory (ProM) refers to remembering to execute planned actions in response to a target ProM cues. Encoding modality influences ProM performance; visual encoding has been studied more than auditory encoding. Further, it has not yet been examined whether different encoding may influence ProM performance in different encoding modalities. This study examines the effects of encoding modality (visual vs. auditory), cue-encoding specificity (specific cue vs. non-specific cue), and encoding modes (standard vs. implementation intention) on event-based ProM tasks. In Experiment 1, cue specificity and encoding modality were manipulated as a within-groups encoding of visual cues is more commonly and between-groups variable. Results revealed the facilitative effect of cue specificity on ProM performance. Also, with respect to encoding modality, participants showed better performance when receiving auditory instructions compared with the visual encoding condition. In Experiment 2, as in Experiment 1, cue specificity and encoding modality were manipulated. Encoding mode was added as a new between-group variable. Result revealed that there was a significant interaction between encoding modality and encoding modes. Visual implementation intention encoding was a more effective method for improving ProM performance compared with visual standard encoding. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between cue-encoding specificity and encoding modes. Implementation intention encoding enhances ProM performance in non-specific cue-encoding conditions. Overall, the present study found that (1) auditory encoding modality showed superior ProM performance compared with visual encoding, although implementation intention had facilitative on ProM performance regardless of the encoding modalities, and (2) there was better ProM performance under specific encoding compared with non-specific encoding, and implementation intention had a facilitative effect on ProM performance in the non-specific condition. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8818949/ /pubmed/35140643 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701281 Text en Copyright © 2022 Chen, Zhang, Xin, Guo, Lin, Ma, Hu, Huang and Liao. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Chen, Youzhen
Zhang, Manman
Xin, Cong
Guo, Yunfei
Lin, Qin
Ma, Zhujun
Hu, Jinhui
Huang, Weiting
Liao, Qianfang
Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory
title Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory
title_full Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory
title_fullStr Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory
title_full_unstemmed Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory
title_short Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory
title_sort effect of encoding on prospective memory
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8818949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35140643
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701281
work_keys_str_mv AT chenyouzhen effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT zhangmanman effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT xincong effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT guoyunfei effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT linqin effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT mazhujun effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT hujinhui effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT huangweiting effectofencodingonprospectivememory
AT liaoqianfang effectofencodingonprospectivememory