Fig 1.
Depiction of the encoding thought probe procedure.
In Experiments 1–2, the target category was animals. This figure was adapted with permission [24].
Fig 2.
Encoding thought probe data collapsed across Experiments 1–8.
The figures depict the aggregate (A) free response data, (B) generation of specific exemplars, and (C) bias toward different encoding strategies.
Table 1.
A summary of the research questions and main results/interpretations across eight studies/experiments of prospective memory encoding.
The reader is directed to the methods and results section of each study for research details and inferential statistics.
Table 2.
Free response data classification as on-task (task-related) or off-task (task unrelated) across experiments.
On-task responses were further classified as mentioning the ongoing task (context), prospective memory response key, or cue words. The on-task specification numbers will not sum to 100% due to some participants providing only miscellaneous responses (e.g., “this experiment”) and others listing multiple components (e.g., response key and cue words).
Table 3.
Frequency of responses to yes/no and encoding bias questions across experiments.
Fig 3.
Encoding response time data relative to specific exemplar generation across experiments.
The figure displays the prior and posterior distributions for effect size δ as a function of generation of specific exemplars. The sample size was limited to young adults in categorical prospective memory conditions. The BF01 and BF10 values from the Bayesian t-test both showed substantial evidence for the null hypothesis that encoding duration was similar for individuals who generated specific exemplars (n = 136; M = 21.62 sec, SD = 7.93) as those who did not generate exemplars (n = 212, M = 22.86 sec, SD = 11.76). The figures were produced using JASP software [56].
Table 4.
Encoding duration data (in seconds) across Experiments 3–8.
Encoding duration data were not collected in Experiments 1–2. Positive correlations indicate that longer encoding durations were associated with more specific exemplar generation and more mind wandering.
Fig 4.
Prospective memory performance in Experiment 8 as a function of specific exemplar encoding.
Error bars reflect standard errors and ** indicates p < .01.
Table 5.
Ongoing task accuracy in Experiment 8 (proportion correct means ± standard deviations).
Fig 5.
Ongoing task cost as a function of encoding processes.
Baseline-adjusted mean trimmed responses times across quintiles of the prospective memory test block in Experiment 8. The cost results are separated by individuals focused on fruits as a general category and individuals focused on specific fruit exemplars. Error bars represent standard errors.
Table 6.
Response times on correct, non-target ongoing task trials in Experiment 8 (means ± standard deviations).