| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 心理學系 === 105 === Prospective memory (PM) is a specific future memory that occurs when you are executing an event or activity that had planned. It plays an important role to ensure whether your daily routine carry out successfully, and it’s not only allow you to remember the specific moment, but also help you executed the task that you have planned. According to the PM cues, PM can be discriminated into two types, which are time-based prospective memory (TBPM) and event-based prospective memory (EBPM). However, there were rarely studies discussing the difference between TBPM and EBPM, therefore the purpose of this study was to investigate whether there are differences between the two prospective memory types in the stage of monitoring cues and cue detection. Experiment 1 required participants to complete an ongoing task that contains different difficulty of cognitive load as carrying on in different conditions of PM (non-prospective memory condition, non-interfered TBPM, interfered TBPM, and EBPM). To understand whether participants’ performance will be affected under different cognitive load, and in different types of PM. The results showed that non-interfered TBPM and EBPM have no significant difference in accuracy, no matter in ongoing task or PM task, but the reaction time of PM task does have significantly difference. However, in interfered TBPM condition, the performance of ongoing task does significantly slower than non-interfered PM and EBPM. It indicated that in interfered TBPM condition, our attention will be dragged and affect the performance of ongoing task, but it won’t affect the performance of PM task. Hence, TBPM and EBPM are slightly different in attentional monitoring process. Experiment 2-1 and experiment 2-2 explored EBPM and TBPM respectively. In experiment 2-1, the frequency of event cue and cognitive load were manipulated to know whether the ongoing task and PM task performance would be influenced. The results showed the high frequency of event cue would strengthen the connection between cue and intention in high cognitive load condition. It indicated that the event cue was processed more automatically by familiarity. In experiment 2-2, discuss the time cue in a way that is more in line with people's daily life experience. Result showed performance of the ongoing task has declined when participants performed the ongoing task and PM task at the same time. In overall, EBPM didn’t affect the ongoing task, but was influenced by familiarity of cue; however, TBPM would affect the ongoing task. The pattern of monitoring cues between them was different that displayed there was a certain degree of difference in the processing of event-based and time-based prospective memory.
|
|---|
