Our research investigates the memory and attention control processes involved in the planning and coordination of future actions (i.e., prospective memory), encoding and retrieval of information in long-term memory (i.e., episodic memory), and monitoring and regulation of one’s own cognition (i.e., metamemory). Within each of these domains, central questions concern individual differences and age-related changes in these processes.
Prospective Memory
Most theories of prospective memory suggest that capacity consuming attentional resources are needed to actively maintain intentions and monitor the environment for the occurrence of cues (e.g., medicine bottle). This monitoring produces cost to ongoing activities (e.g., slower responding) because fewer resources are available for task processing. Using mathematical modeling techniques (i.e., ex-Gaussian and diffusion modeling), our research has identified that both sustained and transient fluctuations in attention underlie these monitoring costs (Ball & Aschenbrenner, 2017; Ball & Brewer, 2018; Ball et al., 2015; Loft et al., 2015). Importantly, contextual information can be used to reduce demands on sustained attention and improve prospective remembering in younger and older adults (Ball et al., 2015; Ball & Bugg, 2018a, Ball & Bugg, 2018b, Ball, Li, & Bugg, 2020, Bugg & Ball, 2017). Alternatively, certain encoding strategies (e.g., increased motivation) can increase reliance on sustained attention and improve performance for low-ability students and older adults (Ball & Aschenbrenner, 2017; Ball & Brewer, 2018; Ball, Vogel, Ellis, & Brewer, under review). These findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing everyday prospective memory failures should focus on sustained attention processes.
Prospective memory also requires the engagement of episodic memory processes to plan and retrieve the contents of the intention (Ball, Vogel, & Brewer, 2019). Similar to transfer appropriate processing effects in the retrospective memory literature, we have shown that prospective memory errors are reduced when temporal, semantic, or emotional associations formed during intention encoding are re-experienced at retrieval (Ball et al., 2015; Cook, Brewer, & Ball, 2014; DeWitt, Hicks, Ball, Knight, & Marsh, 2012; Knight, Brewer, Ball, & DeWitt, 2015). In addition, we have identified that low ability students and older adults are less likely to execute momentarily delayed intentions and show higher rates of commission (e.g., over-medicating) and omission (e.g., under-medicating) errors (Ball, Knight, DeWitt, & Brewer, 2013; Ball, Pitaes, & Brewer, 2018; Scullin, Ball, & Bugg, 2020). The goal of this line of research is to better specify how planning and retrieval processes interact to facilitate prospective remembering.
Episodic Memory
Episodic memory refers to remembering past events and planning for future events, and plays a critical role in day-to-day life. Our research in this domain has explored how individuals control the encoding and retrieval of information into long-term memory. For example, memory control is needed to bind contextual information (e.g., temporal, perceptual, or semantic details) with a specific event in memory during encoding and to subsequently retrieve these details to determine the origin of a memory (i.e., source monitoring). Our research in this domain has focused on the interaction of these processes and suggests that source monitoring errors at retrieval occur in part by inadvertently activating details bound to related items during encoding (Ball, DeWitt, Knight, & Hicks, 2014; Ball, Marsh, Meeks, & Hicks, 2011; DeWitt, Knight, Hicks, & Ball, 2011). Importantly, these errors are increased younger and older adults with poor episodic memory ability (Ball & Brewer, in prep; Wahlheim, Ball, & Richmond, 2017).
Metamemory
Successfully remembering past or future events is partially dependent on the effective regulation of memory monitoring and control processes during acquisition, retention, and retrieval of information (i.e., metamemory). Our research in this domain has examined the commensurate effects of metamemory control processes, such as the decision to terminate study, on assessments of learning. For example, we have found that processing fluency from perceptual information (e.g., bold font) inappropriately biases monitoring (i.e., confidence) and control (e.g., study time) processes in educationally-relevant information (Ball, Klein, & Brewer, 2014). Given the applied ramifications that overconfidence and premature study termination decisions have on learning and memory, understanding the conditions under which perceptual or conceptual information serve to inappropriately bias judgments of learning is an important endeavor. Additionally, we have investigated peoples’ metacognitive awareness of their own prospective memory abilities, the nature and quality of retrieved context in episodic memory, and the processes underlying rejection of false memories (Ball et al., 2015;Ball, Knight et al., 2013; Ball, DeWitt, et al., 2014; Wahlheim et al., 2017). These findings suggest that effective regulation of attention and memory processes is critical for successful learning across a variety of domains.