ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Effect of Encoding on Prospective Memory.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Event-based prospective memory (ProM) refers to remembering to execute planned actions in response to a target ProM cues. Encoding modality influences ProM performance; visual encoding has been studied more than auditory encoding. Further, it has not yet been examined whether different encoding may influence ProM performance in different encoding modalities. This study examines the effects of encoding modality (visual vs. auditory), cue-encoding specificity (specific cue vs. non-specific cue), and encoding modes (standard vs. implementation intention) on event-based ProM tasks. In Experiment 1, cue specificity and encoding modality were manipulated as a within-groups encoding of visual cues is more commonly and between-groups variable. Results revealed the facilitative effect of cue specificity on ProM performance. Also, with respect to encoding modality, participants showed better performance when receiving auditory instructions compared with the visual encoding condition. In Experiment 2, as in Experiment 1, cue specificity and encoding modality were manipulated. Encoding mode was added as a new between-group variable. Result revealed that there was a significant interaction between encoding modality and encoding modes. Visual implementation intention encoding was a more effective method for improving ProM performance compared with visual standard encoding. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between cue-encoding specificity and encoding modes. Implementation intention encoding enhances ProM performance in non-specific cue-encoding conditions. Overall, the present study found that (1) auditory encoding modality showed superior ProM performance compared with visual encoding, although implementation intention had facilitative on ProM performance regardless of the encoding modalities, and (2) there was better ProM performance under specific encoding compared with non-specific encoding, and implementation intention had a facilitative effect on ProM performance in the non-specific condition.
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.