ArticleNeuroscience insights2025
Investigating Prospective Memory Processes: ERP Evidence from Novel Semantic Judgment Tasks.
Article in Neuroscience insights, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prospective memory (PM), the ability to plan and execute intentions in the future, plays a critical role in managing everyday tasks. A gap exists in our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying PM retrieval based on semantic judgment, particularly when using picture-based stimuli. The current study tested 2 novel picture-based semantic-judgment PM tasks: Animal-cued Prospective Retrieval Task (Ac-PRT) and Object-cued Prospective Retrieval Task (Oc-PRT), designed to investigate PM processes involved in intention formation (Cue trials), intention retention (Ongoing trials), and intention retrieval (PM Retrieval trials). Twenty-three young adults, aged 18 to 30 years, completed the tasks while EEG data were recorded. Behavioral results showed that participants responded more slowly during Ongoing trials compared to Cue and PM Retrieval trials and were less accurate during PM Retrieval trials. Additionally, between the tasks, responses were faster and more accurate in Ac-PRT than in Oc-PRT during both Ongoing and PM Retrieval trials. ERP analyses revealed distinct neural signatures across trial types, particularly in P2, N2, N4, and Parietal Positivity (PP) components in both tasks. Additionally, task-specific differences were observed during the PM Retrieval trials in P2, N4, and PP amplitudes and in PP amplitude during the Ongoing trials. These findings demonstrate that the 2 tasks effectively dissociated core PM processes and showed category-specific differences in behavioral and neural mechanisms, offering a robust framework for future investigations of PM in aging and clinical populations.
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.