Cited by 58Personal Information Management and User BehaviorCognitive Functions and MemoryMemory Processes and Influences

Improving memory after interruption: Exploiting soft constraints and manipulating information access cost.

Open access
Morgan, Phillip L., Patrick, John, Waldron, Samuel M., King, Sophia L., Patrick, Tanya·2009·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Abstract

Forgetting what one was doing prior to interruption is an everyday problem. The recent soft constraints hypothesis (Gray, Sims, Fu, & Schoelles, 2006) emphasizes the strategic adaptation of information processing strategy to the task environment. It predicts that increasing information access cost (IAC: the time, and physical and mental effort involved in accessing information) encourages a more memory-intensive strategy. Like interruptions, access costs are also intrinsic to most work environments, such as when opening documents and e-mails. Three experiments investigated whether increasing IAC during a simple copying task can be an effective method for reducing forgetting following interruption. IAC was designated Low (all information permanently visible), Medium (a mouse movement to uncover target information), or High (an additional few seconds to uncover such information). Experiment 1 found that recall improved across all three levels of IAC. Subsequent experiments found that High IAC facilitated resumption after interruption, particularly when interruption occurred on half of all trials (Experiment 2), and improved prospective memory following two different interrupting tasks, even when one involved the disruptive effect of using the same type of resource as the primary task (Experiment 3). The improvement of memory after interruption with increased IAC supports the prediction of the soft constraints hypothesis. The main disadvantage of a high access cost was a reduction in speed of task completion. The practicality of manipulating IAC as a design method for inducing a memory-intensive strategy to protect against forgetting is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018008

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An increasing amount of cognitive offloading accelerates task processing but subsequently diminishes recall performance for visuospatial information.

    “While an increasing amount of cognitive offloading (e.g., in conditions with low temporal costs relative to conditions with high temporal costs) accelerates task processing (Morgan et al., 2009; Waldron et al., 2007), it subsequently diminishes recall performance for visuospatial information (Morgan et al., 2009, 2013; Waldron et al., 2007).”

    From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Morgan et al., 2009

  • The present finding replicates and extends previous results by Morgan et al. (2009; Morgan et al., 2013; Waldron et al., 2007) on longer retention intervals exceeding working memory maintenance and on naturalistic object stimuli.

    “This finding replicates and extends previous results reported by Morgan et al. (2009; see also Morgan et al., 2013; Waldron et al., 2007) on longer retention intervals exceeding working memory maintenance as well as on stimuli depicting naturalistic objects (rather than coloured squares).”

    From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Morgan et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, P. L., Patrick, J., Waldron, S. M., King, S. L., & Patrick, T.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Published
2009
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
291-306
ISSN
  • 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2192
OpenAlex
W2047238661
Cited by
58
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Defence (DTC112)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
information access costs, interruptions, forgetting, prospective memory, working memory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, Serial Learning, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review