↓ Skip to main content

Does predictability matter? Effects of cue predictability on neurocognitive mechanisms underlying prospective memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
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.
Title
Does predictability matter? Effects of cue predictability on neurocognitive mechanisms underlying prospective memory
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giorgia Cona, Giorgio Arcara, Vincenza Tarantino, Patrizia S. Bisiacchi

Abstract

Prospective memory (PM) represents the ability to successfully realize intentions when the appropriate moment or cue occurs. In this study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to explore the impact of cue predictability on the cognitive and neural mechanisms supporting PM. Participants performed an ongoing task and, simultaneously, had to remember to execute a pre-specified action when they encountered the PM cues. The occurrence of the PM cues was predictable (being signaled by a warning cue) for some participants and was completely unpredictable for others. In the predictable cue condition, the behavioral and ERP correlates of strategic monitoring were observed mainly in the ongoing trials wherein the PM cue was expected. In the unpredictable cue condition they were instead shown throughout the whole PM block. This pattern of results suggests that, in the predictable cue condition, participants engaged monitoring only when subjected to a context wherein the PM cue was expected, and disengaged monitoring when the PM cue was not expected. Conversely, participants in the unpredictable cue condition distributed their resources for strategic monitoring in more continuous manner. The findings of this study support the most recent views-the "Dynamic Multiprocess Framework" and the "Attention to Delayed Intention" (AtoDI) model-confirming that strategic monitoring is a flexible mechanism that is recruited mainly when a PM cue is expected and that may interact with bottom-up spontaneous processes.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 %
France 2 5%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 36%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,359,475
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,553
of 7,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,711
of 264,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#166
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 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 7,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 264,576 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 174 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.