You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Meta-Analytic Review of Prospective Memory and Aging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychology and Aging, January 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.27 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julie D. Henry, Mairi S. MacLeod, Louise H. Phillips, John R. Crawford |
| Abstract |
A meta-analysis of prospective memory (PM) studies revealed that in laboratory settings younger participants outperform older participants on tests of both time- and event-based PM (rs=-.39 and -.34, respectively). Event-based PM tasks that impose higher levels of controlled strategic demand are associated with significantly larger age effects than event-based PM tasks that are supported by relatively more automatic processes (rs=-.40 vs. -.14, respectively). However, contrary to the prevailing view in the literature, retrospective memory as measured by free recall is associated with significantly greater age-related decline (r=-.52) than PM, and older participants perform substantially better than their younger counterparts in naturalistic PM studies (rs=.35 and.52 for event- and time-based PM, respectively). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 361 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 330 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 78 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 58 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 12% |
| Researcher | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 69 | 19% |
| Unknown | 52 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 213 | 59% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 17 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 33 | 9% |
| Unknown | 63 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 10 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,863,908
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Psychology and Aging
#248
of 1,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,773
of 143,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychology and Aging
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 143,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.