Prospective Memory - Science topic

Dear Gerry Leisman

NONE of what you say is contrary to what I say. I don't, for my most reasonable position, have to believe there are no connections in/to the greater body, JUST THAT THEY ARE LIKELY TRIVIAL AND NOT ALONE (there are plenty of reasons to believe there are the most significant representations in the brain). Neuroscience as a big help to psychology is unlikely (brain patterns are more sophisticated than we can make sense of -- they are LIKELY as sophisticated AS THE NUANCES OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS THEMSELVES; and, to wit, I have written essays on this and have most-reasonably argued that you must know the BEHAVIOR __PATTERNS__ very well to know what the more obscure brain indicators may refer to -- and DO THIS for the most part, NOT the other way around.)

Sadly all these BIG BELIEFS in/of embodying "representation" in sensori-motor ways is just because you do not have a belief/presumption/assumption structure to believe what is VERY likely, biologically: THAT THERE ARE SUBTLE, BUT IMPORTANT BIOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR SHIFTS WITH ONTOGENY -- these likely BASIC perceptual shifts, in a significant sense originating FROM THE ORGANISM ITSELF in appropriate environments. You are not stage theorists, which essentially means you cannot see behavior __PATTERNS__ (a very rare term, and when used : not correctly) or anything else of the TRUE BIOLOGICAL NATURE OF BEHAVIOR __PATTERNS__ AND PATTERNINGS OF patterns. And, as you are thus separated from the biology of BEHAVIOR ("just behavior", BEHAVIOR PER SE,) you are separated (needlessly) from science (strict empiricism) itself.

Identifying the Neural Substrates of Procrastination: a Resting-State fMRI Study

Wenwen Zhang, Xiangpeng Wang, Tingyong Feng Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 33203

Understanding the Cognitive and Genetic Underpinnings of Procrastination: Evidence for Shared Genetic Influences with Goal Management and Executive Function Abilities

Daniel E. Gustavson, Akira Miyake, John K. Hewitt, Naomi P. Friedman : J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Dec; 144(6): 1063–1079.

Check if the authors are here on RG and connect with them.

A t-test is of course better tahn an ANOVA, because it takes into account the possible differences between variance. Run the Welch t-test if variances are unequal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_1cnwYn7so

Certainly not exhaustive, but here are a few cites you may want to check out:

Marsh & Hicks (1998); Kidder, Park, Herzog, & Morrel (1997); Kliegel, Martin, McDaniel, & Einstein (2002); Smith & Bayen (2005); Brewer, Knight, Marsh, & Unsworth (2010); Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers (2012); Ball, Knight, DeWitt, & Brewer (2014); Rose, Rendell, McDaniel, Aberle, & Kliegel (2010); Schnitzpahn, Stahl, Zeintl, Kaller, & Kliegel (2013); Reynolds, West, & Braver (2009)

I'm probably biased, but I think the Brewer et al. (2010) paper is one of the easier to grasp studies that demonstrates that WM is needed for attentionally demanding tasks (i.e., nonfocal PM), but not for more automatic tasks (i.e., focal PM). But I'd say Marsh & Hicks (1998) is probably one of the most classic cites on the topic. I also like the modeling approach taken by Smith & Bayen (2005).

Pankaj,

The 2011 review paper from Neuropsychologia is probably the most complete review of the ERP and prospective memory literature. There are some newer studies that have appeared in the last couple of years; however, these have not really introduced new component but rather refined our understanding of components identified in previous research. I have attached a PDF of the Neuropsychologia paper, I hope that you find it useful in your research. Cheers, Rob

See research on "implementation intentions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_intention

Hi,

How about a (slightly) different PM task where Ss are to press a key when 2 green squares occur in a row ?

Cheers,

SCM

Dear Nikita, 

The theory of planned behavior is good for this purpose:

No, not to my knowledge. Contact authors remains, in my view, the best option.

Good continuation Brandon.