Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39285128›Full record

ReviewLearning & behavior2025

Measuring spontaneous episodic future thinking in children: Challenges and opportunities.

Que Anh Pham, Gladys Ayson, Cristina M Atance, Tashauna L Blankenship

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Learning & behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Que Anh PhamUniversity of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9112-547X
Gladys AysonUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Cristina M AtanceUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Tashauna L BlankenshipUniversity of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA. tashauna.blankenship@umb.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "Spoon task" is a common measure of episodic future thinking (i.e., ability to imagine hypothetical future events) in children. However, by providing items and prompting children to choose one, this task might not require deliberate and goal-driven episodic future thinking. In contrast, "spontaneous" Spoon tasks may better reflect Tulving's original conception as they minimize environmental cues and verbal prompts. We identify challenges in designing such tasks, including removing the scaffolded intention to act and giving children permission and sufficient motivation to act. Drawing on the comparative literature, we propose methods to overcome these obstacles when designing spontaneous Spoon tasks. Furthermore, sampling from the work of Clayton and colleagues, we advocate for a multipronged approach including two or more of the following methods in order to capture spontaneous behavior: naturalistic observation, virtually administered tasks within the child's home, laboratory experiments, and questionnaires. Our review highlights the importance of spontaneous episodic future thinking and establishes a foundation for future methodologies to study this complex cognitive process.

Indexed as

ImaginationMemory, EpisodicThinkingChildHumansCognitive developmentEpisodic future thinkingSpontaneous behaviorSpoon task

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.