Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36526816›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023

An assessment of learning rates in habitual prospective memory.

Anne Vogel, Ciera Arnett, Chris Blais, Gene A Brewer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. 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

4 authors.

Anne VogelUniversity of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA.
Ciera ArnettArizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Chris BlaisArizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Gene A BrewerArizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. gene.brewer@asu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most laboratory research in the field of prospective memory has focused on newly formed (episodic) intentions that are carried out in the experimental context once or only a small number of times. However, many naturalistic prospective memories are carried out many times and these types of (habitual) intentions have been studied much less in the laboratory. In the current study, our aim was to extend prior work examining habitual intentions in laboratory prospective memory paradigms. Participants formed a typical prospective memory intention and then completed an ongoing task in which the intention could be executed up to 63 times. We examined changes in performance across trials in three traditionally important prospective memory metrics: cue detection, task interference, and cue interference. Across repeated performance of the prospective memory task, we observed an increase in cue detection, elimination of task interference, and elimination of cue interference. These results provide key insights into the operation of learning mechanisms in prospective memory paradigms and promote theory development by showing that many of the resource-demanding processes that are theorized to be necessary for successful prospective memory play much less of a role when intentions are repeatedly completed.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicCuesHumansIntentionAutomaticityHabitLearningProspective 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.