Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35386055›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2022

Distinct monitoring strategies underlie costs and performance in prospective memory.

Seth R Koslov, Landry S Bulls, Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Seth R KoslovDepartment of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. Seth.Koslov@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Landry S BullsDepartment of Psychology and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Jarrod A Lewis-PeacockDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

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-EY-028746
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospective memory (PM) describes the ability to remember to perform goal-relevant actions at an appropriate time in the future amid concurrent demands. A key contributor to PM performance is thought to be the effortful monitoring of the environment for PM-related cues, a process whose existence is typically inferred from a behavioral interference measure of reaction times. This measure, referred to as "PM costs," is an informative but indirect proxy for monitoring, and it may not be sufficient to understand PM behaviors in all situations. In this study, we asked participants to perform a visual search task with arrows that varied in difficulty while concurrently performing a delayed-recognition PM task with pictures of faces and scenes. To gain a precise measurement of monitoring behavior, we used eye-tracking to record fixations to all task-relevant stimuli and related these fixation measures to both PM costs and PM accuracy. We found that PM costs reflected dissociable monitoring strategies: higher costs were associated with early and frequent monitoring while lower costs were associated with delayed and infrequent monitoring. Moreover, the link between fixations and PM costs varied with cognitive load, and the inclusion of fixation data yielded better predictions of PM accuracy than using PM costs alone. This study demonstrates the benefit of eye-tracking to disentangle the nature of PM costs and more precisely describe strategies involved in prospective remembering.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicCognitionCuesHumansMental RecallReaction TimeAttentionEye movementsMemoryProspective memory

Identifiers

PMID35386055
PMCPMC9768009

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.