Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35091994›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Individual differences in memory and attention processes in prospective remembering.

B Hunter Ball, Elizabeth A Wiemers, Gene A Brewer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

B Hunter BallDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, 501 Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX, 76109, USA. Hunter.Ball@uta.edu.
Elizabeth A WiemersDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, 501 Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX, 76109, USA.
Gene A BrewerDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful prospective memory (PM) involves not only detecting that an environmental cue requires action (i.e., prospective component), but also retrieval of what is supposed to be done at the appropriate moment (i.e., retrospective component). The current study examined the role of attention and memory during PM tasks that placed distinct demands on detection and retrieval processes. Using a large-scale individual differences design, participants completed three PM tasks that placed high demands on detection (but low demands on retrieval) and three tasks that placed high demands on retrieval (but low demands on detection). Additionally, participants completed three attention control, retrospective memory, and working memory tasks. Latent variable structural equation modeling showed that the prospective and retrospective components of PM were jointly influenced by multiple cognitive abilities. Critically, attention and retrospective memory fully mediated the relation between working memory and prospective memory. Furthermore, only attention uniquely predicted PM detection, whereas only retrospective memory uniquely predicted PM retrieval. These findings highlight the value of independently assessing different PM components and suggest that both attention and memory abilities must be considered to fully understand the dynamic processes underlying prospective remembering.

Indexed as

IndividualityMemory, EpisodicAttentionHumansMental RecallRetrospective StudiesAttentionIndividual differencesMemoryProspective memoryWorking memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.