| Title |
An individual difference perspective on focal versus nonfocal prospective memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-016-0628-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sascha Zuber, Matthias Kliegel, Andreas Ihle |
| Abstract |
The present study targeted the question of whether focal versus nonfocal prospective memory (PM) can be distinguished on a construct level, and if so, to what extent individual differences in these two constructs are related to individual differences in facets of controlled attention and episodic memory. 315 individuals (aged 20-68 years) were administered focal and nonfocal PM tasks as well as indicators measuring updating, inhibition, shifting, and episodic memory. Latent variable modeling revealed that focal and nonfocal PM were two distinguishable but related constructs. Furthermore, analyses showed that focal PM was more strongly related to inhibition, while nonfocal PM was more strongly related to shifting. Present data support the conceptual hypothesis that focal and nonfocal PM should be conceptualized as two distinguishable but related constructs. Moreover, they suggest that both have some but distinct associations to controlled attention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 29% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 57% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1,576
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,176
of 367,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.