↓ Skip to main content

The interplay of intention maintenance and cue monitoring in younger and older adults’ prospective memory

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
The interplay of intention maintenance and cue monitoring in younger and older adults’ prospective memory
Published in
Memory & Cognition, June 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13421-017-0720-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Ballhausen, Katharina M. Schnitzspahn, Sebastian S. Horn, Matthias Kliegel

Abstract

The retention phase of a prospective memory (PM) task poses different challenges, including demands to store or maintain an intended action and to realize the right moment for action execution. The interplay of these processes in younger and older adults has not been explored so far. In this study, the authors examined the impact of maintenance load and task focality on PM in 84 younger and in 83 older adults. Results indicated that PM performance and ongoing task response times were strongly affected by maintenance load and age. However, a focality effect only emerged when maintenance load was low but not when attentional resources were deployed for maintaining a more demanding intention. These findings suggest that maintenance and monitoring requirements compete for similar attentional resources. Furthermore, maintenance load may affect postretrieval processes through its impact on working-memory resources, which can restrain the typical advantage of focal over nonfocal PM tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 52%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,940,583
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#911
of 1,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,536
of 317,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 317,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.