Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31601634›Full record

ArticleeNeuro

Cognitive Flexibility Improves Memory for Delayed Intentions.

Seth R Koslov, Arjun Mukerji, Katlyn R Hedgpeth, Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

4 authors.

Seth R KoslovDepartment of Psychology.
Arjun MukerjiHelen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720.
Katlyn R HedgpethDepartment of Psychology.
Jarrod A Lewis-PeacockDepartment of Psychology Jalewpea@utexas.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9918-465X

Funding

Neuroscience Training Program at UC BerkeleyT32NS095939 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI BATEUP, HELEN S. · 2016 to 2025
$6.3M
Biasing the Forgetting of Visual MemoriesR01EY028746 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI LEWIS-PEACOCK, JARROD A · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY028746NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS095939
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to delay the execution of a goal until the appropriate time, prospective memory (PM), can be supported by the following two different cognitive control strategies: proactive control involving working memory maintenance of the goal and active monitoring of the environment; or reactive control relying on timely retrieval of goal information from episodic memory. Certain situations tend to favor each strategy, but the manner in which individuals adjust their strategy in response to changes in the environment is unknown. Across two experiments, human participants performed a delayed-recognition PM task embedded in an ongoing visual search task that fluctuated in difficulty. A control strategy was identified from moment to moment using reaction time costs and fMRI measures of goal maintenance. We found that people fluidly modified control strategies in accordance with changes in task demands (e.g., shifting toward proactive control when task difficulty decreased). This cognitive flexibility proved adaptive as it was associated with improved PM performance.

Indexed as

IntentionMemory, EpisodicAttentionBrainCognitionExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMemory, Short-TermNeuropsychological TestsPhotic StimulationYoung Adultcognitive controlcognitive flexibilityfMRIMVPAprospective memoryworking memory

Identifiers

PMID31601634
PMCPMC6838690

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.