ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition2021
Wait a second . . . Boundary conditions on delayed responding theories of prospective memory.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated responding improves prospective memory accuracy.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Flexible attention allocation dynamically impacts incidental encoding in prospective memory.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research suggests that forcing participants to withhold responding for as brief as 600 ms eliminates one of the most reliable findings in prospective memory (PM): the cue focality effect. This result undermines the conventional view that controlled attentional monitoring processes support PM, and instead suggests that cue detection results from increased response thresholds that allow more time for PM information to accumulate. Given the significance of such findings, it is critical to examine the generalizability of the delay mechanism. Experiments 1-4 examined boundary conditions of the delay theory of PM, whereas Experiment 5 more directly tested contrasting theoretical predictions from monitoring theory (e.g., multiprocess framework) and delay theory. Using the same (Experiment 1) or conceptually similar (Experiment 2) delay procedure and identical cues (nonfocal "tor" intention) from the original study failed to show any influence of delay on performance. Using a different nonfocal intention (first letter "S") similarly did not influence performance (Experiment 3), and the difference between focal and nonfocal cue detection was never completely eliminated even with delays as long as 2,500 ms (Experiment 4). Experiment 5 did find the anticipated reduction in the focality effect with increased delays with a larger sample (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.