Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering

According to the multiprocess framework (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000), the cognitive system can support prospective memory (PM) retrieval through two general pathways. One pathway depends on top-down attentional control processes that maintain activation of the intention and/or monitor the envir...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mark A Mcdaniel, Sharda eUmanath, Gilles O Einstein, Emily R. Waldum
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-07-01
Series:Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00392/full
id doaj-44a5304af3ae4ab4a8b85f886b6cff74
record_format Article
spelling doaj-44a5304af3ae4ab4a8b85f886b6cff742020-11-25T03:23:44ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612015-07-01910.3389/fnhum.2015.00392148091Dual Pathways to Prospective RememberingMark A Mcdaniel0Sharda eUmanath1Gilles O Einstein2Emily R. Waldum3Washington UniversityWashington UniversityFurman UniversityWashington UniversityAccording to the multiprocess framework (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000), the cognitive system can support prospective memory (PM) retrieval through two general pathways. One pathway depends on top-down attentional control processes that maintain activation of the intention and/or monitor the environment for the triggering or target cues that indicate that the intention should be executed. A second pathway depends on (bottom-up) spontaneous retrieval processes, processes that are often triggered by a PM target cue; critically spontaneous retrieval is assumed to not require monitoring or active maintenance of the intention. Given demand characteristics associated with experimental settings, however, participants are often inclined to monitor, thereby potentially masking discovery of bottom-up spontaneous retrieval processes. In this article, we discuss parameters of laboratory PM paradigms to discourage monitoring and review recent behavioral evidence from such paradigms that implicate spontaneous retrieval in PM. We then re-examine the neuro-imaging evidence from the lens of the multiprocess framework and suggest some critical modifications to existing neuro-cognitive interpretations of the neuro-imaging results. These modifications illuminate possible directions and refinements for further neuro-imaging investigations of PM.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00392/fullprospective memoryspontaneous retrievalneuroimaging of prospective memoryprospective memory paradigmsmonitoring in prospective memory
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mark A Mcdaniel
Sharda eUmanath
Gilles O Einstein
Emily R. Waldum
spellingShingle Mark A Mcdaniel
Sharda eUmanath
Gilles O Einstein
Emily R. Waldum
Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
prospective memory
spontaneous retrieval
neuroimaging of prospective memory
prospective memory paradigms
monitoring in prospective memory
author_facet Mark A Mcdaniel
Sharda eUmanath
Gilles O Einstein
Emily R. Waldum
author_sort Mark A Mcdaniel
title Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering
title_short Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering
title_full Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering
title_fullStr Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering
title_full_unstemmed Dual Pathways to Prospective Remembering
title_sort dual pathways to prospective remembering
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
issn 1662-5161
publishDate 2015-07-01
description According to the multiprocess framework (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000), the cognitive system can support prospective memory (PM) retrieval through two general pathways. One pathway depends on top-down attentional control processes that maintain activation of the intention and/or monitor the environment for the triggering or target cues that indicate that the intention should be executed. A second pathway depends on (bottom-up) spontaneous retrieval processes, processes that are often triggered by a PM target cue; critically spontaneous retrieval is assumed to not require monitoring or active maintenance of the intention. Given demand characteristics associated with experimental settings, however, participants are often inclined to monitor, thereby potentially masking discovery of bottom-up spontaneous retrieval processes. In this article, we discuss parameters of laboratory PM paradigms to discourage monitoring and review recent behavioral evidence from such paradigms that implicate spontaneous retrieval in PM. We then re-examine the neuro-imaging evidence from the lens of the multiprocess framework and suggest some critical modifications to existing neuro-cognitive interpretations of the neuro-imaging results. These modifications illuminate possible directions and refinements for further neuro-imaging investigations of PM.
topic prospective memory
spontaneous retrieval
neuroimaging of prospective memory
prospective memory paradigms
monitoring in prospective memory
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00392/full
work_keys_str_mv AT markamcdaniel dualpathwaystoprospectiveremembering
AT shardaeumanath dualpathwaystoprospectiveremembering
AT gillesoeinstein dualpathwaystoprospectiveremembering
AT emilyrwaldum dualpathwaystoprospectiveremembering
_version_ 1724604889523290112