Maintaining an intention to perform a specific action in the future, known as prospective remembering, under certain conditions is associated with performance costs in ongoing activities that are performed while maintaining the intention. While such costs in prospective memory (PM) tasks have been documented extensively (Cottini & Meier, 2020) it is currently debated, whether they represent effects of a resource-demanding monitoring for PM cues or a strategic delay of ongoing-task responses (e.g., Heathcote et al., 2015; Strickland et al., 2017). Anderson et al. (2018) assessed effects of different performance-strategy instructions on ongoing-task costs and associated parameter configurations in an accumulator model of ongoing-task performance in order to more closely map changes associated with PM monitoring and a strategic delay of ongoing-task responses. There key findings were that strategic delay instructions produced distinct and different behavioural effects and model parameter configurations than monitoring instructions, and that processes elicited by standard PM instructions more closely resembled effects of PM cue monitoring. By contrast, in a recent study, Kurtz et al. (2022) used mouse-movement tracking in a PM task in order to assess sub-process underlying ongoing-task costs during active PM tasks and aftereffects of completed intentions. Here the authors found evidence for a strategic delay of ongoing-task responses in terms of a mouse movement that was more in the middle between response options for the ongoing task and the PM task during the first half of the mouse movement. However, since this was also accompanied by response slowing during the first half, it is unclear to what extent PM monitoring may have contributed to ongoing task costs. While this discrepancy between findings may in parts be due to differences in task design and the characteristics of the measures that were employed in each study, it is unclear how specific monitoring or delay strategy instructions would affect response dynamics during PM tasks. Therefore, in the present study, we will combine these approaches and conduct a conceptual replication of the Anderson et al. (2018) study with a mouse-movement tracking paradigm that is based on the Kurtz et al. (2022) study. Specifically, we will assess response dynamics of ongoing-task and PM performance in a mouse-tracking paradigm when giving participants task either a standard PM instruction or instructions that are designed to foster either or a monitoring-based or a delay-based performance strategy. With this, we aim to a) characterize response dynamics of different strategies to perform an ongoing task during a PM task and b) assess whether response dynamics during standard PM instructions differ substantially from delay strategies or PM monitoring strategies. Additionally, we will investigate effects of such performance strategies on the processing of irrelevant distractor stimuli during a PM task and assess effects on aftereffects of responding to prospective memory cues (Meier & Cottini, 2022).