ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The role of temporal delay and repeated prospective memory cueexposure on the deactivation of completed intentions

Moritz Walser • Franziska Plessow •

Thomas Goschke • Rico Fischer

Received: 28 February 2013 / Accepted: 24 July 2013

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract Previous studies have shown that completed

prospective memory (PM) intentions entail aftereffects in

terms of ongoing-task-performance decrements in trials

containing repeated PM cues which previously served as

PM cues triggering the intended action. Previous research

reported that PM aftereffects decrease over time, thus

revealing a specific time course of PM aftereffects. In the

present study, we tested two accounts for this pattern,

assuming either that the decline of aftereffects is related to

the temporal distance to PM task completion or may be a

result of the repeated exposure of repeated PM cues in the

ongoing task. In three experiments, we manipulated both

the temporal distance to PM task completion and the fre-

quency of repeated PM cues and demonstrated that after-

effects of completed intentions declined with repeated

exposure of formerly relevant PM cues. In addition, effects

of repeated exposure were not only limited to the repetition

of specific PM-cue exemplars but also generalized to other

semantically related PM cues within the PM-cue category.

Together, findings show that decreased aftereffects of

completed intentions are not related to the temporal dura-

tion of the subsequent test block, but crucially depend on

the repeated exposure of the previously relevant PM cues.

Introduction

The ability to form, maintain, and retrieve an intended

action in a specific situation in the future, such as mailing a

letter when coming across a mailbox, is known as event-

based prospective memory (PM) and is an essential ability

for every day functioning. While many prospective mem-

ory studies investigated the involvement of maintenance

and monitoring processes in performing a delayed intended

action (e.g., Smith, 2003), previous studies also highlighted

the role of a specific PM cue (e.g., mailbox) as a trigger

signal for the retrieval of the intended action (Einstein et al.

2005; McDaniel & Einstein, 2000). The attractiveness of

such a view lies in the contextual trigger condition that

does not necessarily require an active and demanding

monitoring mechanism. The influential multiprocess

framework (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000), e.g., proposes

that PM retrieval is supported by specific features of the

PM cue. Salient and focal PM cues support a rather

spontaneous retrieval of the intended action and increase

the probability for successful PM performance. Non-salient

and non-focal cues, on the other hand, require rather

resource-demanding monitoring processes. Such a PM cue-

based focus of successful delayed intention retrieval and

PM performance, however, requires a strong association

between the PM cue (e.g., mailbox) and the to-be-per-

formed action (e.g., mail a letter) that is maintained during

the retention interval until the required PM-cue event

occurs and the intention will have been completed suc-

cessfully (Einstein et al., 2005). Such a view is also in line

with findings showing that not only the content (i.e., action

plan) of the intention (Goschke & Kuhl, 1993) but also PM

cues are stored in an increased sub threshold activation in

long-term memory compared to other memory contents

(Marsh, Hicks, & Watson, 2002).

A strong reliance on environmental cues as trigger for

action implementation, however, raises the question of the

susceptibility to reoccurring PM cues after the intended

action has been completed. The successful intention

deactivation (e.g., deactivating the link between intention

M. Walser (&) � F. Plessow � T. Goschke � R. Fischer

Department of Psychology, Technische Universitat Dresden,

01062 Dresden, Germany

e-mail: walser@psychologie.tu-dresden.de

123

Psychological Research

DOI 10.1007/s00426-013-0510-z

and retrieval cue) plays an important role for every day

functioning because a failure to deactivate completed

intentions would be dysfunctional as it might provoke

erroneous retrieval of the already completed intended

action (i.e., commission errors) or interfere with sub-

sequent tasks.

Not surprisingly, researchers have started to investigate

aftereffects of completed intentions and the particular role

of repeated occurrence of PM cues when the link between

the PM cue and the intended action has become irrelevant

(e.g., Pink & Dodson, 2013; Scullin, Bugg, & McDaniel,

2012; Walser, Fischer, & Goschke, 2012; Walser, Gos-

chke, & Fischer, 2013).

Studies on PM deactivation

Typical studies investigating the deactivation of completed

intentions use classical laboratory PM paradigms (e.g.,

Einstein & McDaniel, 1990) in which participants perform

a choice reaction time task, such as lexical-decision or

number categorization tasks (ongoing task), and an addi-

tional PM task. The PM task requires participants to sus-

pend the ongoing task and to press a different key in

response to a PM cue such as a rarely appearing pre-

specified word or symbol (e.g., Scullin & Bugg, 2013;

Walser et al., 2012). At the end of the PM task participants

are instructed that the task has been completed and is of no

more relevance. Subsequently, no-more-relevant PM cues

from the previous PM task are embedded in an ongoing

task as PMREPEATED trials. Aftereffects of completed

intentions are measured as ongoing task performance dif-

ferences on PMREPEATED trials compared to control trials

(i.e., oddball trials).

On the basis of such paradigms, many researchers found

persisting effects of completed intentions, such as

increased RTs and/or (commission) errors on PMREPEATED

trials suggesting that performing and completing the

intended action does not lead immediately to a complete

deactivation of the link between PM cue and intended

action (Beck, Ruge, Walser, & Goschke, 2013; Bugg,

Scullin, & McDaniel, 2013; Pink & Dodson, 2013; Scullin

et al., 2012; Scullin, Bugg, McDaniel, & Einstein, 2011;

Scullin & Bugg, 2013; Walser et al., 2012, 2013). The idea

here is that the intention representation (i.e., PM cue,

intended action and/or the link between the PM cue and the

intended action) remains in a heightened state of residual

activation (Walser et al., 2012) and therefore, still triggers

the old PM response on PMREPEATED trials resulting in

response conflict with the ongoing task, and thus in

increased response times (RTs) or error rates (PM after-

effects). Of note, given that intention representations

comprise several distinct components, including represen-

tations of the intended goal, the to-be-performed action,

and its execution conditions or trigger cues, persisting post-

enactment activation could in principle refer to each of

these components. While it is an interesting question,

which particular components of completed intentions may

persist in a state of increased activation, in the present

paper, we focus on a different unresolved question, namely

whether aftereffects of completed intentions gradually

decline with increasing temporal distance to the completion

of a PM task, or whether deactivation of completed

intentions depends on the repeated exposure to repeated

(no longer relevant) PM cues.

Because the repeated activation of a no longer relevant

action is often dysfunctional, the identification of condi-

tions and factors that modulate or minimize PM aftereffects

is of major interest to researchers in the prospective

memory field. For example, several factors have been

recognized to result in increased aftereffects of completed

intentions: Strong PM-cue salience (Scullin et al., 2012),

similarity between the PM task and the subsequent task in

which aftereffects are measured (Scullin et al., 2012),

impaired cognitive control ability (Scullin et al., 2011,

2012) as well as personality factors such as a tendency

toward state orientation as compared to action orientation

(Walser et al., 2013). Furthermore, it has also been shown

that the extent of aftereffects of completed intentions can

be modulated by either reflecting upon no-more-relevant

PM cues after PM task completion (i.e., increased after-

effects) or by performing a cognitively demanding working

memory task (i.e., reduced aftereffects) (Walser et al.,

2013).

Time course of PM aftereffects

Regarding the modulation of PM aftereffects, inconsistent

results have been reported with respect to the time course

of PM aftereffects. For example an intention representation

may gradually decay as a function of delay after intention

completion due to the mere passage of time and/or inter-

ference from other memoranda (for this discussion on

short-term memory see e.g., Berman, Jonides, & Lewis,

2009; Campoy, 2012). The idea of delay-dependent

intention deactivation is supported by findings of similar

forgetting curves for other memory contents (for a similar

decay of PM performance over time see McBride, Beckner,

& Abney, 2011; for an overview of retrospective memory

forgetting see Rubin & Wenzel, 1996). Indeed, a gradual

decrease of PM aftereffects over time was recently reported

by Walser et al. (2012). Aftereffects were assessed within

blocks containing six PMREPEATED trials (compared to six

oddball trials). In four experiments, RT and/or error

aftereffects were increased during the early first three

PMREPEATED encounters as compared to the later last three

PMREPEATED encounters (for a similar finding see Beck

Psychological Research

123

et al., 2013). Alternatively, and in contrast to a temporal

dependency, the reduction of intention aftereffects over

time, however, might also result from PM-cue effective-

ness washing out with increasing number of cue encoun-

ters. Since specific PMREPEATED trials are linked during

intention formation and PM performance with the associ-

ated intended action, this specific PM cue-action link could

be weakened when the specific PMREPEATED cue is

repeatedly bound to a new action (i.e., the ongoing task).

Evidence against a temporal dependency of PM after-

effects was provided in a study by Scullin and Bugg (2013)

(see also Scullin et al., 2011). Scullin and Bugg (2013)

used a between-subjects design and measured commission

errors on a single PMREPEATED trial to investigate the effect

of delay interval length after intention completion on

intention aftereffects. Importantly, the probability of

commission errors did not differ between short (40 trials)

versus long delay intervals (258 trials).

Our goal in the present study was to investigate why results

from previous studies were apparently contradictory to each

other by differentiating between the two competing expla-

nations of delay versus repeated exposure on the degradation

of aftereffects of completed intentions over time.

Experiment 1

We adapted the paradigm of Walser et al. (2012) (see

Fig. 1). During an initial PM block, participants performed

a digit parity-judgment task as ongoing task. In addition,

they had to respond on PM trials, which were two different

PM cue exemplars of the same category (e.g., PM A

cue = square, PM B cue = rhombus, PM-cue cate-

gory = quadrangles), by pressing the X key. Following an

instruction that the PM task had been completed, afteref-

fects of completed intentions were measured in two

subsequent test blocks (Test block 1 and Test block 2) in

which participants had to perform the ongoing task during

all trials. Whereas in Test block 1 only one exemplar

served as repeated PM cue (PM AREPEATED), in Test block

2 both exemplars (PM AREPEATED and PM BREPEATED)

were included. To calculate comparable aftereffects trig-

gered by PM AREPEATED and PM BREPEATED cues, the

oddball trials were categorically matched. That is, from an

unrelated category (e.g., punctuation marks) one arbitrary

exemplar served as oddball A (e.g., two question marks)

and another as oddball B (e.g., two exclamation marks),

respectively. This allowed us to calculate PM aftereffects

for exemplars that served in both Test blocks (A-items; i.e.,

PM AREPEATED vs. oddball A) and PM aftereffects for

exemplars that served exclusively in Test block 2 (B-items;

i.e., PM BREPEATED vs. oddball B).

Comparing PM aftereffects for A-items and B-items in

Test block 2 enabled us to differentiate between the two

hypotheses. If the temporal delay is of crucial importance for

the decline of PM aftereffects, PM aftereffects in Test block 2

should be similarly reduced for A-items and B-items, because

both item sets share the same temporal distance to PM task

completion. If, on the other hand, PM aftereffects decline as a

function of repeated exposure, PM aftereffects should be

smaller for A-items that also occurred in Test block 1 com-

pared to B-items that were only introduced in Test block 2.

Method

Participants

Twenty-eight students of the Technische Universitat

Dresden (3 male, age M = 24.46 years, SD = 6.35)

attended a single experimental session lasting for about

50 min. Participants had normal or corrected-to-normal

sight and received 5 € or course credit.

Fig. 1 Example trials of the

prospective memory (PM) block

and Test blocks 1 and 2 for

Experiment 1. Participants were

required to perform parity

judgments on all trials except

for PM A and PM B trials in

which they had to press the

X key. In Experiment 2, PM

AREPEATED trials and oddball A

trials did not occur in Test

blocks 1 and 2. Note, framing of

trial types were not present in

the experiment but serve

exclusively to illustrate different

trial types in this figure

Psychological Research

123

Apparatus and stimuli

The digits 2–9 served as stimuli (Arial font, visual angle

2.2� with a viewing distance of approximately 60 cm) and

were presented in black against a gray background on a

19-inch monitor. One of two exemplar deviant stimuli that

were members of one out of ten categories (i.e., two

punctuation marks, circles, quadrangles, two letters, trian-

gle, cylinder, mathematical symbols, one single currency

symbol, in parenthesis, with an arrow) could appear around

or next to the ongoing-task digits as PM A trials, PM B

trials, or control trials (i.e., oddball A trials, oddball B

trials) (visual angle 4.5�), whereby for each participant five

categories were randomly drawn to serve as PM A/PM B

trials and five categories to serve as oddball A/oddball B

trials. Further 15 different deviant stimuli (e.g., @-sym-

bols, a star) that accompanied ongoing-task digits were

used as further control and/or irrelevant filler trials (i.e.,

oddball trials). Participants responded with the ‘‘,’’ key

(right index finger), the ‘‘.’’ key (right middle finger) and

the ‘‘X’’ key (left index finger) on a standard German

(QWERTZ) keyboard.

Procedure and design

The experiment started with a practice block to familiarize

the participants with the ongoing task, which required them

to categorize digits according to parity with the right index

finger for odd digits and the right middle finger for even

digits. The practice block contained 16 standard and 8

symbolic deviant trials. After the initial practice block

participants completed five cycles with each a PM block,

Test block 1 and Test block 2 (Fig. 1).

PM block At the beginning of the PM block participants

received the PM task instruction to respond to members of

a deviant PM-cue category (e.g., quadrangles) with the left

index finger instead of performing the ongoing task. Of

each PM-cue category two members were presented each

four times as PM cues (e.g., PM A cue = square, PM B

cue = rhombus). Additionally on four trials an irrelevant

oddball appeared. The PM block contained 48 trials. Each

trial started with a fixation cross (500 ms) followed by the

imperative stimulus which remained until a response was

given. If an incorrect or no response was given within

3,000 ms, a high-pitch tone (750 Hz) was given through

headphones as feedback for 200 ms. At the end of the PM

block an instruction was shown that the PM task was

completed.

Test block 1 Test block 1 (144 trials) started after a short

break (20 s) with an instruction to perform the parity-

judgment task on all trials. Only one of the two PM cues of

the previous PM block served as PMREPEATED trial in Test

block 1 (PM AREPEATED). From an unrelated category (e.g.,

punctuation marks) a single item served as oddball (oddball

A, e.g., two question marks). PM AREPEATED trials and

oddball A trials occurred each six times. In addition, Test

block 1 contained two further unrelated oddball trial types

(each 6 trials) to ensure a similar amount of deviant trials in

Test blocks 1 and 2. Test block 1 served to measure

aftereffects on PM AREPEATED (compared to oddball A

trials).

Test block 2 Test block 2 (144 trials) started after a short

break (10 s). Importantly, this block contained the same

PM AREPEATED trials and oddball A trials as in Test block

1. In addition, it contained six PM BREPEATED trials (e.g.,

rhombus) and six oddball B trials (e.g., two exclamation

marks) which served to measure aftereffects of the second

category member (i.e., B-items).

Each digit (2–9) was presented in random order 6 times

in each PM block and 18 times in each Test block 1 and

Test block 2, respectively. PM trials, PMREPEATED trials

and oddball trials were randomly interspersed within

blocks, the only constraint being that they could not appear

during the first four trials of the PM block and Test blocks,

respectively. The only variation of the experimental task

over the five cycles was that different deviant stimulus

categories were used in each cycle. Specifically, during

each cycle one out of the ten deviant stimulus categories

served as PM A/PM B trials and another as oddball

A/oddball B trials.

Results

Error trials (6.2 %) and trials with RTs 2.5 standard devi-

ations (SDs) above or below a participant’s mean RT for a

given trial type (PM block: 2.7 %; Test block 1: 2.7 %;

Test block 2: 2.4 %) were excluded prior to RT analyses.

PM block

Participants performed equally well on PM A trials and PM

B trials, as shown by similar RTs, t(27) = -0.84,

p = .411, d = -0.11; and error rates, t(27) = 0.63,

p = .537, d = 0.10. Overall, responses were 303 ms

slower, t(27) = 13.99, p \ .001, d = 2.50; and 18.1 %

more erroneous, t(27) = 7.32, p \ .001, d = 1.68, on

oddball trials compared to standard trials (Fig. 2; Table 1).

Test block 1

We conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs with the factor

trial type (standard, oddball A, PM AREPEATED) on RTs and

error rates of the ongoing task. For RT analysis, trial type

Psychological Research

123

reached significance, F(2, 54) = 50.87, p \ .001,

g2 = .65. Repeated contrasts revealed an orientation

response (55 ms) on oddball A trials in terms of slower

RTs than on standard trials, F(1, 27) = 38.00, p \ .001,

g2 = .56. At the same time, it should be noted that RTs on

the two further oddball trial types, which served exclu-

sively as filler trials to ensure the same ratio of standard

and deviant stimuli during Test block 1 and Test block 2,

did not differ from RTs on oddball A trials, Fs \ 1

(planned contrasts).

Most important, we found aftereffects of completed

intentions (M = 28 ms), as shown by slower RTs on PM

AREPEATED trials than on oddball A trials, F(1,

27) = 15.41, p = .001, g2 = .36. To test for a decrease of

aftereffects as a function of cue repetitions within Test

block 1, we compared aftereffects between the first three

encounters and last three encounters of PM AREPEATED

trials (for a similar analysis see also Walser et al., 2012).

We found aftereffects for early encounters (M = 60 ms,

t[27] = 6.00, p \ .001, d = 0.58) but not for late

encounters (M = 0 ms, t[27] = -0.03, p = .973,

d = 0.00), as indicated by a Trial type 9 Block position

interaction, F(1, 27) = 15.59, p = .001, g2 = .37.

Test block 2

We compared aftereffects of completed intentions in Test

block 2 by computing 2 (trial type: PMREPEATED, odd-

ball) 9 2 (item set: A-items, B-items) repeated-measures

ANOVAs on RTs and error rates. For RTs the factor item set

reached significance, F(1, 27) = 7.38, p = .011, g2 = .21,

indicating smaller overall RTs for A-items (M = 548 ms),

that also appeared in Test block 1, compared to B-items

(M = 565 ms) that were only presented in Test block 2. The

factor trial type and the Trial type 9 Item set interaction did

not reach significance, Fs \ 1, indicating no aftereffects and

hence complete intention deactivation for both, A-items

(M = 2 ms) and B-items (M = 3 ms), respectively.

Further analyses

To disregard explanations on the basis of the use of

repeated cycles of PM and Test blocks in the present

Fig. 2 Results for Experiments

1 and 2. Mean response times

(RT) and error rates for the PM

block in PM A and PM B trials,

for Test block 1 (oddball A, PM

AREPEATED) and Test block 2

(oddball A, PM AREPEATED,

oddball B, PM BREPEATED) as a

function of trial type. Error bars

represent standard errors

Table 1 Mean RTs and error rates for the PM block, Test block 1

and Test block 2 by trial type in Experiments 1 and 2 (standard

deviations in parentheses)

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

RT (ms) Error (%) RT (ms) Error (%)

PM block

Standard 583 (71) 6.2 (3.9) 593 (79) 5.5 (3.5)

Oddball 886 (156) 24.3 (14.7) 921 (172) 15.3 (13.6)

PM A 597 (66) 7.0 (7.9) 647 (91) 7.8 (6.6)

PM B 605 (83) 6.3 (6.6) 629 (87) 9.1 (10.2)

Test block 1

Standard 534 (57) 5.5 (3.6) 546 (75) 5.3 (3.6)

Oddball A 589 (88) 5.2 (4.0)

PM AREPEATED 617 (92) 6.4 (6.2)

Test block 2

Standard 525 (56) 6.1 (3.9) 548 (71) 5.9 (3.4)

Oddball A 547 (72) 6.7 (5.9)

PM AREPEATED 549 (60) 6.1 (5.2)

Oddball B 564 (81) 7.0 (5.9) 602 (90) 6.0 (6.2)

PM BREPEATED 567 (85) 6.6 (5.9) 646 (120) 7.7 (6.2)

Psychological Research

123

design,1 in a subsequent step, we repeated the ANOVAs using

only the very first cycle of Test block 1 and Test block 2. Most

importantly and in line with the analysis including all cycles,

we found aftereffects for A-items in Test block 1 (M = 42 ms;

PM AREPEATED trials: M = 651 ms, SD = 122 ms; oddball A

trials: M = 609 ms, SD = 105 ms), F(1, 27) = 7.17,

p = .012, g2 = .21. In Test block 2, no PM aftereffects were

found for A-items (M = 0 ms; PM AREPEATED trials:

M = 553 ms, SD = 91 ms; oddball A trials: M = 553 ms,

SD = 91 ms) nor for B-items (M = -6 ms; PM BREPEATED

trials: M = 592 ms, SD = 130 ms; oddball B trials: M =

598 ms, SD = 159 ms), Fs \ 1. Further analyses revealed

that for A-items during Test blocks 1 and 2 and for B-items

during Test block 2 aftereffects did not vary over the course of

the experimental session, as no Trial type 9 Repeated cycles

interactions were found, Fs \ 1. An additional RT analysis on

PM trials (PM A and PM B together) as a function of repeated

cycle was significant, F(4, 108) = 8.65, p \ .001, g2 = .24.

Repeated contrast showed that RTs were increased in the first

cycle (M = 653 ms, SD = 93 ms) compared to second cycle

(M = 594 ms, SD = 75 ms), F(1, 27) = 14.90, p \ .001,

g2 = .36; but did not differ between subsequent cycles,

Fs \ 1. In sum, these analyses revealed that repeating cycles

led to faster responses on PM trials, whereas they did not affect

aftereffects of completed intentions.

To disregard that missing aftereffects in Test block 2

were due to a complete shielding of deviant stimulus

information, we computed repeated-measures ANOVAs

with the factor trial type (standard, oddball A, oddball B)

on RTs and error rates, which reached significance,

F(2, 54) = 12.42, p \ .001, g2 = .32. Planned contrasts

revealed shorter RTs on standard trials than on oddball A

trials, F(1, 27) = 12.54, p = .001, g2 = .32, indicating an

orientation reaction on deviant stimuli and thus that par-

ticipants could not ignore deviant stimuli completely dur-

ing Test block 2. There was a tendency—albeit not

significant—toward increased RTs on oddball B compared

to oddball A trials, F(1, 27) = 3.25, p = .083, g2 = .10.

Comparison of PM aftereffects in Test block 1 and Test

block 2 (A-items)

We conducted 2 (trial type: PM AREPEATED, oddball

A) 9 2 (Test block: 1, 2) repeated-measures ANOVAs on

RTs and error rates to analyze the fade of aftereffects for

A-items between Test blocks 1 and 2. Overall RTs on PM

AREPEATED trials (M = 583 ms) were increased compared

to oddball A trials (M = 568 ms), F(1, 27) = 12.80,

p = .001, g2 = .32. Overall RTs were slower in Test block

1 (M = 603 ms) than in Test block 2 (M = 548 ms), F(1,

27) = 33.31, p \ .001, g2 = .55. Most important, the Trial

type 9 Test block interaction was significant, F(1, 27) =

5.32, p = .029, g2 = .17, indicating that PM aftereffects

for A-items decreased from Test block 1 to Test block 2.

As hardly any commission errors (0.02 %) were made

we only computed an overall error analysis. For all cor-

responding analyses on error rates of Test blocks 1 and 2,

however, no significant effects were found, all ps [ .268.

Discussion

In Experiment 1, category members of PM cues that were

presented as PMREPEATED cues in Test block 1 and Test

block 2 (A-items) revealed PM aftereffects only in Test

block 1 but not in the subsequent Test block 2. Category

members of PM cues that were presented as PMREPEATED

cues exclusively in Test block 2 (B-items) did also not

show PM aftereffects in Test block 2. Although these

results seem to suggest that sufficient temporal delay

between intention completion and measurement of PM

aftereffects determines the decrease of PM aftereffects,

such an interpretation has to be handled with care, because

two alternative interpretations need to be considered:

First, whereas PM BREPEATED served as PM B cues in

the PM block, oddball B cues in the Test block 2 were

never presented before. Therefore, one could argue that the

novelty of a first-time presentation of oddball B trials in

Test block 2 resulted in a stronger orientation response

(i.e., slowed RTs to oddball B trials) and thus, eliminated

the PM aftereffect for B-items. To disregard this possibil-

ity, we conducted a control replication experiment in which

oddball A trials and oddball B trials were presented already

in the PM block. Results were virtually identical to

Experiment 1. Most importantly, in Test block 2 no PM

aftereffects were found for B-items.2

Second, effects of repeated exposure of PM AREPEATED

trials in Test block 1 may have transferred to PM

1 The repeated cycles of PM and Test blocks differ to other

approaches such as single-cycle paradigms (e.g., Scullin & Bugg,

2013). One could argue, e.g., that using repeated cycles, PM

aftereffects may be overestimated when participants are ambiguous

whether the intention has really finished and persist monitoring

(Walser et al., 2012). In contrast, aftereffects may also be underes-

timated, because over the course of the experimental session,

participants might learn to increasingly shield the ongoing task from

deviant PMREPEATED and oddball stimuli during the Test blocks.

2 Sixteen participants participated in the experiment (1 male, age

M = 22.56 years, SD = 4.08). In Test block 1, RTs on PM

AREPEATED trials (M = 609 ms, SD = 121 ms) were slower than

on oddball A trials (M = 550 ms, SD = 89 ms), F(1, 15) = 28.65,

p \ .001, g2 = .66, indicating aftereffects of completed intentions

(M = 59 ms). In Test block 2, no aftereffects were found for A-items

(6 ms, PM AREPEATED trials: M = 553 ms, SD = 88 ms; oddball A:

M = 547 ms, SD = 85 ms) nor for B-items (10 ms, PM BREPEATED

trials: M = 548 ms, SD = 79 ms; oddball B: M = 538 ms,

SD = 80 ms). The factor trial type was not significant. Also, Trial

type 9 Item set did not interact, both Fs \ 1.

Psychological Research

123

BREPEATED trials in Test block 2. That is, because PM A

cues and PM B cues were exemplar items of the same

semantic category, it is conceivable that diminished PM

aftereffects for B-items in Test block 2 are a consequence

of generalized transfer effects from semantically related

A-items. More specifically, during the repeated exposure to

PM AREPEATED trials participants might have deactivated

not only the specific S-R link between PM A cues of the

categorical intention and the associated intended action.

Instead, participants might have formed a more abstract

semantic intention representation during the categorical

PM task instruction (see also Walser et al., 2012). Conse-

quently, this might have enabled a transfer of repeated

exposure of PM AREPEATED trials to PM BREPEATED trials

resulting even in complete intention deactivation of PM

BREPEATED trials in Test block 2.

Experiment 2

We conducted Experiment 2 to test for the assumption of a

within-category transfer effect. To rule out this alternative

explanation, we adapted Experiment 1 by omitting all

A-items from Test block 1 and Test block 2. Therefore, Test

block 1 did not contain any PMREPEATED trials, eliminating

the possibility of repeated exposure and of within-category

transfer. Only in Test block 2, B-items (PM BREPEATED and

oddball B) were included. If intention deactivation in

Experiment 1 would have been due to a delay effect, no

aftereffects on PM BREPEATED trials should occur in

Experiment 2. If intention deactivation in Experiment 1

would have been due to a transfer from PM AREPEATED trial

repetitions to PM BREPEATED trials, in Experiment 2 after-

effects on PM BREPEATED trials should be observed.

Method

Participants

Sixteen new students of the Technische Universitat Dres-

den (2 male; age M = 20.63 years, SD = 3.01) partici-

pated in Experiment 2.

Apparatus and stimuli

In Experiment 2, we used the same apparatus and stimuli as

in Experiment 1.

Procedure and design

The procedure of Experiment 2 was similar to the one of

Experiment 1 except the following changes. During Test

block 1 and Test block 2 no PM AREPEATED and oddball A

trials were shown. Consequently, Test block 1 contained 132

standard trials and two different specific oddball trial types,

each during six trials. Test block 2 contained 132 standard

trials, 6 PM BREPEATED trials and 6 oddball B trials.

Results

Error trials (5.8 %) and trials with RTs 2.5 SDs above or

below a participant’s mean RT for a given trial type (PM

block: 2.8 %; Test block 2: 2.7 %) were excluded prior to

RT analyses.

PM block

RTs and error rates on PM A and PM B trials did not differ,

t(15) = 1.45, p = .166, d = 0.20; and t(15) = -0.84,

p = .411, d = -0.15, respectively. Participants responded

slower and made more errors on oddball trials than on

standard trials, t(15) = 11.10, p \ .001, d = 2.45, and

t(27) = 3.02, p = .009, d = 0.99, respectively (Fig. 2;

Table 1).

Test block 2

We conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs with the factor

trial type (standard, oddball B, PM BREPEATED) on RTs and

error rates. The ANOVA on RTs was significant, F(2,

30) = 21.46, p \ .001, g2 = .59. RTs on oddball B trials

were slower than on standard trials, denoting an orientation

response (M = 54 ms), F(1, 15) = 32.80, p \ .001,

g2 = .69 (repeated contrast). Most important, we found

aftereffects of completed intentions (M = 44 ms) in terms

of increased RTs on PM BREPEATED trials as compared to

oddball B trials, F(1, 15) = 6.01, p = .026, g2 = .29. In

the corresponding analysis on error data, trial type did not

reach significance, F \ 1.

Similar to Experiment 1, we again compared RT after-

effects between the first three encounters and the last three

encounters of PM BREPEATED trials. Presumably due to the

small sample size and thus lack of statistical power, the

Trial type 9 Block position interaction slightly missed

significance, F(1, 15) = 3.68, p = .074, g2 = .20. On a

descriptive level, however, aftereffects were larger for

early encounters (M = 95 ms, t[15] = 2.50, p = .025,

d = 0.64) than those of late encounters (M = 28 ms,

t[15] = 1.90, p = .076, d = 0.28).

Further analyses

In addition, we re-analyzed aftereffects of Experiment 2 by

exclusively using data from the first cycle of PM block,

Test block 1 and Test block 2, to rule out the possibility

that the repeated cycle of PM block and Test blocks

Psychological Research

123

affected intention aftereffects. Importantly, even for the

very first cycle, we found significant PM aftereffects in

Test block 2 (M = 52 ms; PM BREPEATED trials: M =

668 ms, SD = 132 ms; oddball B trials: M = 616 ms,

SD = 105 ms), F(1, 15) = 7.09, p = .013, g2 = .34. In

addition, aftereffects did not vary over the course of the

experimental session, as no Trial type 9 Repeated cycles

interaction was found in a subsequent analysis, F \ 1.

Between-experiment comparison

We conducted a 2 9 2 mixed ANOVA with trial type

(PMREPEATED, oddball) as within-subjects factor and

experiment (Experiment 1: PM AREPEATED, oddball A in

Test block 1; Experiment 2: PM BREPEATED, oddball B in

Test block 2) as between-subjects factor to test whether

aftereffects in Experiment 1 (M = 26 ms) and Experiment

2 (M = 44 ms) varied as a function of delay after intention

completion when ruling out the influence of repeated

exposure. The factor experiment, F \ 1; and the Experi-

ment 9 Trial type interaction, F(1, 39) = 1.10, p = .299,

g2 = .03, were not significant, indicating no differences in

aftereffects after a short (Experiment 1) and long delay

(Experiment 2).

To test whether Item-B aftereffects in Test block 2

varied as a function of repeated Item-A exposure, we

computed a between-experiment comparison of Item-B

aftereffects in Test block 2. Importantly, the mixed

ANOVA with trial type (PM BREPEATED, oddball B) as

within-subjects factor and experiment (Experiment 1,

Experiment 2) as between-subjects factor revealed smaller

Item-B aftereffects in Experiment 1 (M = 2 ms) compared

to Experiment 2 (M = 44 ms), as indicated by a Trial

type 9 Experiment interaction, F(1, 42) = 5.66, p = .022,

g2 = .12.

Discussion

Surprisingly and in contrast to Experiment 1, we observed

aftereffects of completed intentions for PM BREPEATED

trials during Test block 2. These aftereffects did not differ

from those of PM AREPEATED trials during Test block 1 in

Experiment 1 with a much shorter temporal delay to

intention completion. Further, PM BREPEATED aftereffects

were substantially increased compared to those of Experi-

ment 1, when ruling out the role of delay. Consequently,

the disappearance of aftereffects in Test block 2 found in

Experiment 1 cannot be accounted for by a delay effect.

Findings from Experiment 2 rather indicate that effects of

repeated exposure (i.e., response reconfiguration) affect not

only specific members of an intention but that response

reconfiguration may generalize from one PM cue to other

PM cues of the same semantic category (see ‘‘General

discussion’’ for further implications and alternative expla-

nations of this finding).

Experiment 3

Experiment 3 served to provide further and more direct

evidence for the assumption that decreased aftereffects of

completed intentions are specifically related to repeated

exposure to PMREPEATED items and less so to temporal dis-

tance to intention completion. For this, we directly manipu-

lated repeated exposure and temporal delay in a single

experiment using only PM-cue exemplars. In particular, for

this, participants had to perform the PM task in response to

specific PM cues (e.g., a square) instead of different members

of a PM-cue category as in Experiments 1 and 2. We used a

single Test block to measure aftereffects. We tested the

influence of delay versus repeated cue exposure on afteref-

fects using a 2 (block length: short, long) 9 2 (frequency: 4

PMREPEATED trials, 12 PMREPEATED trials) within-subjects

design. If aftereffects fade as a function of delay after PM

task completion, they should be smaller in the long- than the

short-block condition. If in contrast aftereffects fade as a

function of PMREPEATED trial repetitions, they should be

smaller in the 12- than the 4-PMREPEATED trials condition.

Method

Participants

Twenty-four new students of the Technische Universitat

Dresden (8 male; age M = 23.79 years, SD = 1.05) par-

ticipated for 12 € or course credit in two experimental

sessions lasting about 1 h each.

Apparatus and stimuli

In Experiment 3, we used the same apparatus as in

Experiment 1. However, instead of categorical PM cues,

exemplar PM cues were used. That is, 36 different deviants

(e.g., square, circle, @-symbols, stars, triangles) served as

PM cues, PMREPEATED cues and oddballs.

Procedure and design

Participants attended two experimental sessions each

comprising 12 cycles with each a PM block and a single

Test block. In contrast to Experiments 1 and 2 participants

received at the beginning of each cycle a PM instruction to

press the X key instead of performing the ongoing parity-

judgment task in response to a specific PM cue (e.g., digits

surrounded by a square). The PM block (48 trials) contained

4 PM trials and 4 oddball trials. We used a 2 9 2 design to

manipulate block length (short: 48 trials, long: 144 trials)

Psychological Research

123

and PMREPEATED trial frequency (4 trials, 12 trials) in the

subsequent Test block. To separate the orientation response

from intention aftereffects and thus realize a comparable

baseline condition a similar number of oddball trials (i.e., 4

trials vs. 12 trials) were presented in the Test block. During

each of the 12 cycles, one of the 36 deviant stimuli was

assigned to serve as PM/PMREPEATED trial, one as oddball

trial during the PM block and one as oddball trial during the

Test block. Two experimental sessions were conducted to

increase statistical power. Both sessions similarly contained

each of the four Block length 9 PMREPEATED trial fre-

quency conditions three times. The only difference between

sessions was the order of conditions for each participant.

Two to five days passed between the sessions. Similar to

Experiments 1 and 2, each experimental session started with

a practice block, in which participants were made familiar

with the parity-judgment task.

Results

Error trials (4.9 %) and trials with RTs 2.5 SDs above or

below a participant’s mean RT for a given trial type (PM

block: 2.6 %; Test block: 2.7 %) were excluded prior to

RT analyses.

PM block

Performance on PM trials was comparable to previous

experiments. RTs on oddball trials were 233 ms slower

than on standard trials, indicating an orientation response,

t(23) = 13.55, p \ .001, d = 1.92. Participants made

6.1 % more errors on oddball trials than on standard trials,

t(23) = 7.29, p \ .001, d = 1.17 (Fig. 3; Table 2).

Test block

We conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs with the fac-

tors trial type (PMREPEATED, oddball), block length (short,

long) and frequency (4 trials, 12 trials) on RTs and error

data of the ongoing task. The ANOVA on RTs revealed a

main effect of trial type, F(1, 23) = 43.58, p \ .001,

g2 = .66, indicating an overall aftereffect of completed

intentions (M = 27 ms). RTs were faster on short blocks

(M = 581 ms) than on long blocks (M = 602 ms), F(1,

23) = 9.28, p = .006, g2 = .29. Responses were slower

in the low frequency (M = 615 ms) compared to the high-

frequency condition (M = 569 ms), F(1, 23) = 43.58,

p \ .001, g2 = .66. Most important, aftereffects did not

vary as a function of block length, as Trial type 9 Block

length did not interact, F(1, 23) = 1.20, p = .285, g2 =

.05. In contrast, aftereffects were substantially reduced in

the 12 PMREPEATED trials condition (M = 12 ms, t[23] =

2.66, p = .014, d = 0.11) compared to the 4 PMREPEATED

trials condition (M = 40 ms, t[23] = 4.89, p \ .001, d =

0.33), as indicated by a significant Trial type 9 Frequency

interaction, F(1, 23) = 18.04, p \ .001, g2 = .44. There

was no Trial type 9 Block length 9 Frequency interac-

tion, F \ 1.

Fig. 3 Mean response time

(RT) and percent error as a

function of trial type

[prospective memory (PM),

standard] in the PM block and

as a function of PMREPEATED

trial frequency (4 trials, 12

trials), block length (short: 48

trials, long: 144 trials) and trial

type (standard, oddball,

PMREAPEATED) in the Test block

of Experiment 3. Error bars

represent standard errors

Psychological Research

123

Further analyses

Similar to Experiments 1 and 2, we re-analyzed aftereffects

of Experiment 3 only including the first cycle of PM block

and Test block. Visual inspection suggests that the main

findings can also be obtained in the first cycle. That is,

aftereffects were not affected by block length, F \ 1. In

contrast, aftereffects were at least numerically smaller in

the 12 PMREPEATED trials condition (M = 27 ms, t[11] =

1.42, p = .182, d = 0.18) than in the 4 PMREPEATED trials

condition (M = 88 ms, t[11] = 2.09, p = .060, d = 0.45).

Due to a lack of power, however, this difference failed

to reach statistical significance, F(1, 20) = 1.61, p = .219,

g2 = .07.3

Subsequently, it was tested whether aftereffects in the 4

PMREPEATED trials condition and 12 PMREPEATED trials

condition were comparable when the analysis was restric-

ted to the first four PMREPEATED encounters. Importantly,

the Trial type 9 Frequency interaction was no more sig-

nificant, F(1, 23) = 3.12, p = .090, g2 = .12, suggesting

that aftereffects did not (at least statistically) differ any-

more between the 12 PMREPEATED trials condition (M =

27 ms) and 4 PMREPEATED trials condition (M = 40 ms),

thereby fostering the role of repeated exposure on

aftereffects.4

To further test if the deactivation depends on repeated

exposure to PMREPEATED trials, we re-analyzed aftereffects

for early and late PMREPEATED trials (see also ‘‘Experiment

1’’ and ‘‘Experiment 2’’). Irrespective of block length,

aftereffects decreased from the early six encounters

(M = 21 ms, t[23] = 2.99, p = .007, d = 0.18) to the late

six encounters (M = 4 ms, t[23] = 1.17, p = .254,

d = 0.04) in the 12 PMREPEATED trials condition, F(1,

23) = 7.42, p = .012, g2 = .24. Similarly, for the four

PMREPEATED trials condition aftereffects decreased from

the early two encounters (M = 62 ms, t[23] = 5.21,

p \ .001, d = 0.42) to the late two encounters (M =

21 ms, t[23] = 2.42, p = .024, d = 0.19), as indicated by

a Trial type 9 Block position interaction, F(1, 23) =

12.09, p = .002, g2 = .35.

An additional ANOVA on standard trials only as a

function of block length and frequency revealed that RTs

did not vary as a function of block length, F \ 1. RTs on

standard trials were slightly increased in the high-fre-

quency condition (M = 520 ms) compared to the low-

frequency condition (M = 515 ms), F(1, 23) = 5.76,

p = .025, g2 = .20.5

We only computed an overall error analysis, because

participants hardly made any commission errors (0.02 %).

For all corresponding analyses on error rates of the Test

block, no significant effects were found, all ps [ .092.

Table 2 Mean RTs and error rates for the PM block by trial type, and

for the Test block by block length (short: 48 trials, long: 144 trials),

PMREPEATED trial number and trial type in Experiment 3 (standard

deviations in parentheses)

RT (ms) Error (%)

PM block

Standard 541 (88) 4.9 (3.5)

Oddball 774 (147) 11.0 (6.5)

PM 617 (82) 10.3 (7.2)

Test block

Short blocks

4 PMREPEATED trials

Standard 513 (85) 4.1 (3.4)

Oddball 575 (110) 5.4 (7.0)

PMREPEATED 610 (139) 4.3 (6.1)

12 PMREPEATED trials

Standard 522 (88) 4.5 (4.1)

Oddball 566 (109) 6.1 (6.1)

PMREPEATED 575 (113) 6.6 (8.0)

Long blocks

4 PMREPEATED trials

Standard 517 (86) 4.9 (4.3)

Oddball 614 (113) 5.6 (6.2)

PMREPEATED 662 (153) 6.6 (8.0)

12 PMREPEATED trials

Standard 519 (89) 4.6 (3.4)

Oddball 559 (93) 5.8 (4.9)

PMREPEATED 576 (112) 6.1 (6.1)

3 We thank Julie Bugg for suggesting this analysis.

4 Although not significant, the at least numerically somewhat larger

aftereffects in the 4 compared to the 12 PMREPEATED trials condition

may be due to the task structure, as we cannot control for a potential

imbalance of encountered oddball trials prior to the first 4

PMREPEATED trials in both conditions. It is conceivable, e.g., that in

the 12 PMREPEATED trials condition participants have an increased

experience of task-irrelevant deviants prior to the first 4 PMREPEATED

trials, which should decrease aftereffects and RTs in trials including

deviants in general (oddball trials and PMREPEATED trials alike). In

fact, this is supported by a main effect of frequency, with faster

responses to deviant trials in the high-frequency (12 repeat) condition

compared to the low-frequency (4 repeat) condition.5 This might have been caused by the increased number of post-

deviant standard trials (i.e., 24) following the 24 deviant stimuli (12

PMREPEATED, 12 oddballs) in the high-frequency condition compared

to the 8 post-deviant standard trials following the 8 deviant stimuli (4

PMREPEATED, 4 oddballs). Switching attention back from deviant

stimuli to subsequent standard trials might have caused reorientation

costs (see also Meier & Rey-Mermet, 2012). Re-analyzing standard

trial RTs while excluding post-deviant standard trials strongly

diminished the RT difference between low- and high-frequent

conditions to a non-significant level, F(1, 23) = 2.71, p = .113,

g2 = .10.

Psychological Research

123

Discussion

In Experiment 3, we measured aftereffects of completed

intentions in a single Test block after intention completion,

varying orthogonally the block length and the frequency of

PMREPEATED trials. Aftereffects did not vary as a function

of block length, arguing against the hypothesis that after-

effects might decrease as a function of delay after intention

completion. In contrast, aftereffects were reduced in con-

ditions with 12 PMREPEATED trials compared to conditions

with 4 PMREPEATED trials supporting the assumption that

aftereffects might decrease as a function of repeated

exposure of the no-more-relevant PM cue during the

ongoing task.

General discussion

Our aim in the present study was to shed light on the

controversy of whether aftereffects of completed intentions

fade as a function of delay after intention completion or as

a function of repeated exposure of PMREPEATED trials. In

Experiment 1, aftereffects for both PM-cue category

members vanished in Test block 2 independently of whe-

ther they were repeatedly exposed (i.e., A-items) or never

shown (i.e., B-items) during Test block 1. At first sight, this

finding was consistent with the assumption that aftereffects

fade as a function of delay after intention completion.

However, in Experiment 2, in which we prevented repeated

exposure by omitting all PMREPEATED trials from Test

block 1, aftereffects re-occurred during Test block 2. This

finding indicates that aftereffects did not cease as a func-

tion of temporal distance to intention completion. Instead,

in Experiment 1 response reconfiguration processes due to

repeated exposure of A-items during Test block 1 trans-

ferred from one PM-cue category member to another. We

found conforming evidence for this assumption in Exper-

iment 3, in which we orthogonally tested delay and repe-

ated exposure in a single experiment. Importantly, delay in

terms of block length did not affect the size of aftereffects.

Instead, aftereffects of completed intentions were strongly

affected by repeated exposure as indicated by reduced

aftereffects in high-frequency conditions in which PMRE-

PEATED trials were shown 12 times as compared to low-

frequency conditions in which PMREPEATED trials were

shown only four times.

Interpretations of the repeated exposure effect

Our findings enable explaining contradictory results of

previous studies. First and consistent with studies, in

which a between-subjects manipulation of delay interval

length between PM task completion and measurement of

aftereffects was used (Scullin et al., 2011; Scullin & Bugg,

2013), we did not find evidence for a delay effect, neither

in a between-experiment comparison between Experi-

ments 1 and 2, nor by manipulating block length in

Experiment 3. Secondly, we found decreasing aftereffects

that were associated with the repeated exposure of

PMREPEATED trials in both, Experiment 1 (A-items), and in

Experiment 3 with smaller aftereffects in the high fre-

quency compared to the low-frequency condition, irre-

spective of the temporal distance to intention completion.

We assume that the first PMREPEATED encounters triggered

retrieval of the associated intended action, resulting in a

response conflict and thus increased ongoing task RTs

and/or commission errors. Over the course of PMREPEATED

trial repetitions the link between the PM cue and the no-

more-relevant PM task (e.g., pressing the X key) was

destabilized resulting in decreasing reactivation of the old

PM response during PMREPEATED encounters. It is even

conceivable that during this response reconfiguration,

participants formed a new link between PMREPETEAD trials

and performing an ongoing task response. This interpre-

tation of a response reconfiguration effect is consistent

with studies showing that new stimulus–response links can

be acquired within only a few stimulus repetitions (De

Baene, Kuhn, & Brass, 2012; Ruge & Wolfensteller,

2010).

Interpretations of the transfer effect of repeated

exposure

The finding of a transfer effect of repeated exposure from

PM AREPEATED trials to PM BREPEATED trials is very

informative. First, it is in line with the findings from a

previous experiment (Walser et al., 2012, Experiment 4), in

which participants received a categorical PM instruction

and performed the PM task exclusively on one of two PM-

cue category members. Interestingly, aftereffects of com-

pleted intentions were also found for another PM-cue cat-

egory member that never served as PM cue during the PM

block. Findings from Walser et al. (2012) and the transfer

effect observed in the present study indicate that PM

intentions might not only be stored as specific links

between the PM cue and its associated intended action.

Rather, PM intentions might be stored on a more abstract,

semantic level in episodic memory (Goschke & Kuhl,

1993) and/or specific links might generalize and transfer to

other related items.

The assumption of an abstract semantic intention rep-

resentation is, however, not mandatory for explaining

transfer effects in Experiment 1. That is, it is also con-

ceivable that participants deactivated their left-hand

responses during Test block 1, thereby leading not only to

no more aftereffects on PM AREPEATED trials, but also on

Psychological Research

123

PM BREPEATED trials in Test block 2.6 At the same time it

should be noted, though, that other studies reported after-

effects of completed intentions when a single hand was

used to complete both, the ongoing task and the PM

response, respectively (Scullin et al., 2012; Scullin &

Bugg, 2013). Still, this alternative explanation highlights

that it remains a theoretically extremely important question

what exactly is deactivated (e.g., the abstract semantic

intention representation; a specific stimulus–response link

between PM cue and motor action on a procedural level)

after intention completion, how intentions are represented

in memory, and which aspects of intentions are responsible

for aftereffects of completed intentions.

In addition, one might assume that the transfer effect of

repeated exposure might alternatively be explainable by

retrieval-induced forgetting,7 suggesting that the retrieval

of a practice-item impairs the activation of related items

(Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994). Although we cannot

entirely exclude this possibility, we render this explanation

as rather unlikely. That is, in previous work applying vir-

tually the same experimental design, PMREPEATED trials,

which were members of a PM-cue category and never

presented during the PM block and thus ‘‘unpracticed’’,

yielded reliable aftereffects (Walser et al., 2012, Experi-

ment 4).

Furthermore, given the possibility of a transfer of the

repeated exposure effect, it might play an important role in

interpreting findings of a seemingly delay effect in previ-

ous studies on aftereffects of completed intentions. For

instance, Forster, Liberman, and Higgins (2005) measured

aftereffects of a PM cue (e.g., the symbol of glasses) using

semantically related words (e.g., professor, read, sun). In a

first test block after intention completion, aftereffects were

found in terms of increased lexical-decision RTs on words

related to glasses as compared to control words (and

interpreted as an inhibition effect). In a subsequent second

test block, lexical-decision RTs were similar on intention-

related words and control words. The authors interpreted

their finding as intention aftereffects disappearing as a

function of delay after intention completion. Against the

backdrop that repeated exposure might transfer to seman-

tically related aspects of a completed intention, these

results have to be interpreted with caution and a transfer

effect of repeated exposure has to be taken into consider-

ation as an alternative explanation. More specifically, the

construct glasses and its semantically related items might

have been bound to the ongoing lexical-decision task with

repeated exposure, leading to a disappearance of afteref-

fects. In the present study, we did not aim to directly test

this assumption. Nevertheless, our finding of transfer

effects clearly calls for future research on the implications

for previous findings and on its generalizability. For

instance, it remains an empirical question whether

observed transfer effects from encoding at a category level

(Experiment 2) to related PM exemplar cues are restricted

to the specific encoding at the category level or whether a

similar transfer would also be observable from encoding at

an exemplar level to other related PM exemplar cues.

The role of delay and interference on intention

deactivation

The present and previous experiments on deactivation of

completed intentions did not find unambiguous proof for

delay-dependent deactivation processes (Beck et al., 2013;

Forster et al., 2005; Scullin et al., 2011; Scullin & Bugg,

2013; Walser et al., 2012). Despite the clear evidence for

repeated exposure on intention deactivation, we do not

deny that decay might play a role for deactivation of

completed intentions. Given the relatively short time

intervals investigated so far, future research might inves-

tigate the role of delay by systematically varying the time-

interval length between intention completion and mea-

surement of intention aftereffects.

At the same time, determining the specific time course

of PM aftereffect decline is not trivial, as other mecha-

nisms have to be considered as well. For example, it is

conceivable that some aspects of the intention representa-

tion (i.e., the readiness of the PM cue, intended action, and/

or PM cue–intended action link) might lose their strength

as a mere function of delay after intention completion.

Furthermore, interference from other memoranda might

play a crucial role for intention deactivation to work. In

line with the latter idea, it might be crucial for intention

deactivation what a person does after intention completion.

Consistent with this idea Walser et al. (2013) recently

showed smaller intention aftereffects when participants

were required to perform a resource demanding working

memory task between intention completion and measure-

ment of aftereffects. In addition, aftereffects could even be

increased when participants reflected upon the no-more-

relevant PM cues. A similar assumption has been discussed

for forgetting in other memory fields such as short-term

memory (e.g., Berman et al., 2009; Campoy, 2012;

McKeown & Mercer, 2012). Consequently, future research

might more systematically investigate the role of interfer-

ence and delay on intention deactivation.

Conclusions

The present study integrates heterogeneous findings from

previous studies that were apparently opposing each other.

6 We thank Michael Ziessler for raising this point.7 We thank Julie Bugg for this suggestion.

Psychological Research

123

That is, decreasing aftereffects in studies using multiple

PMREPEATED trials (Beck et al., 2013; Walser et al., 2012,

2013) might be explained with repeated exposure and are

thus consistent with studies using a between-subject com-

parison and/or a single PMREPEATED trial that did not find

differences in aftereffects (Scullin et al., 2011; Scullin &

Bugg, 2013). Further, the present findings indicate that

repeated exposure might also transfer between semanti-

cally related (but not identical) PMREPEATED trials (Forster

et al., 2005). The present study suggest that previous

findings of decreasing aftereffects in studies using multiple

PMREPEATED trials cannot be explained by a delay-depen-

dent decay of intention aftereffects.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Julia Kleindienst, Laura

Pepernick and Sarah Richter for assistance in data collection. We

thank Julie Bugg and Michael Ziessler for thoughtful comments on an

earlier version of this manuscript. This research was partly supported

by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (SFB 940/1-2013).

References

Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering

can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063

Beck, S. M., Ruge, H., Walser, M., & Goschke, T. (2013). The

functional neuroanatomy of spontaneous retrieval and strategic

monitoring of delayed intentions (in revision).

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Lewis, R. L. (2009). In search of decay

in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 317–333. doi:10.

1037/a0014873.

Bugg, J. M., Scullin, M. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). Strength-

ening encoding via implementation intention formation increases

prospective memory commission errors. Psychonomic Bulletin

& Review, 20(3), 522–527. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0378-3

Campoy, G. (2012). Evidence for decay in verbal short-term memory:

A commentary on Berman, Jonides, and Lewis (2009). Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

38(4), 1129–1136. doi:10.1037/a0026934.

De Baene, W., Kuhn, S., & Brass, M. (2012). Challenging a decade of

brain research on task switching: Brain activation in the task-

switching paradigm reflects adaptation rather than reconfigura-

tion of task sets. Human Brain Mapping, 33(3), 639–651. doi:10.

1002/hbm.21234.

Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and

prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 717–726. doi:10.

1037/0278-7393.16.4.717

Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank,

H., Morrisette, N., et al. (2005). Multiple processes in prospec-

tive memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus

spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 134(3), 327–342. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327.

Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Accessibility from

active and fulfilled goals. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 41(3), 220–239. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.009.

Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993). Representation of intentions:

Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5),

1211–1226. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1211.

Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Watson, V. (2002). The dynamics of

intention retrieval and coordination of action in event-based

prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 652–659. doi:10.

1037/0278-7393.28.4.652.

McBride, D. M., Beckner, J. K., & Abney, D. H. (2011). Effects of

delay of prospective memory cues in an ongoing task on

prospective memory task performance. Memory & Cognition,

39(7), 1222–1231. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0105-0.

McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic

processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess

framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S127–S144.

doi:10.1002/acp.775.

McKeown, D., & Mercer, T. (2012). Short-term forgetting without

interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 1057–1068. doi:10.1037/

a0027749.

Meier, B., & Rey-Mermet, A. (2012). Beyond monitoring: After-

effects of responding to prospective memory targets. Conscious-

ness and Cognition, 21(4), 1644–1653. doi:10.1016/j.concog.

2012.09.003.

Pink, J. E., & Dodson, C. S. (2013). Negative prospective memory:

Remembering not to perform an action. Psychonomic Bulletin &

Review, 20(1), 184–190. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0337-4.

Rubin, D. C., & Wenzel, A. E. (1996). One hundred years of

forgetting: A quantitative description of retention. Psychological

Review, 103(4), 734–760. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.734.

Ruge, H., & Wolfensteller, U. (2010). Rapid formation of pragmatic

rule representations in the human brain during instruction-based

learning. Cerebral Cortex, 20(7), 1656–1667. doi:10.1093/

cercor/bhp228.

Scullin, M. K., & Bugg, J. M. (2013). Failing to forget: Prospective

memory commission errors can result from spontaneous retrieval

and impaired executive control. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3),

965–971. doi:10.1037/a0029198.

Scullin, M. K., Bugg, J. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). Whoops, I

did it again: Commission errors in prospective memory.

Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 46–53. doi:10.1037/a0026112.

Scullin, M. K., Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O.

(2011). Prospective memory and aging: Preserved spontaneous

retrieval, but impaired deactivation, in older adults. Memory &

Cognition, 39, 1232–1240. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0106-z.

Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-

based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands

of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 347–361.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347.

Walser, M., Fischer, R., & Goschke, T. (2012). The failure of

deactivating intentions: Aftereffects of completed intentions in

the repeated prospective memory cue paradigm. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

38(4), 1030–1044. doi:10.1037/a0027000.

Walser, M., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2013). The difficulty of

letting go: Moderators of the deactivation of completed inten-

tions. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0509-5

Psychological Research

123