Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26489046›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

The Role of Extrinsic Rewards and Cue-Intention Association in Prospective Memory in Young Children.

Daniel Patrick Sheppard, Anett Kretschmer, Elisa Knispel, Bianka Vollert, Mareike Altgassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel Patrick SheppardDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anett KretschmerDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Elisa KnispelDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Bianka VollertDepartment of Psychology, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Mareike AltgassenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Psychology, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current study examined, for the first time, the effect of cue-intention association, as well as the effects of promised extrinsic rewards, on prospective memory in young children, aged 5-years-old (n = 39) and 7-years-old (n = 40). Children were asked to name pictures for a toy mole, whilst also having to remember to respond differently to certain target pictures (prospective memory task). The level to which the target picture was associated with the intention was manipulated across two conditions (low- or high-association) for all participants, whilst half of the participants were promised a reward for good prospective memory performance. Results showed a main effect of age, with the 7-year-olds outperforming the 5-year-olds. Furthermore, there was a main effect of reward, with those promised a reward performing better than those who were not. No effect was found for cue-association, with the participants of both age groups performing equally well in both association conditions. No significant interactions were found between any of the variables. The potentially important role of reward in young children's everyday prospective memory tasks, and possible reasons for the lack of a reflexive-associative effect, are discussed.

Indexed as

IntentionMemory, EpisodicRewardAttentionChildChild, PreschoolCuesFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID26489046
PMCPMC4619271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.