2019
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215845
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Event versus activity-based cues and motivation in school-related prospective memory tasks

Abstract: Prospective memory (PM), the ability to remember an intention in the future, is essential to children’s everyday lives. We explored age differences (6- to 7- vs. 10- to 11-year-olds) in PM depending on the nature of the task and the children’s motivation. Children performed event-based PM tasks (in which the cue was presented during the ongoing activity) and activity-based PM tasks (in which the cue consisted of finishing the ongoing activity). Additionally, the children were assigned to either a reward condit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
(50 reference statements)
2
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results also showed that the third year middle school students outperformed in RM and PM. This result is in accordance with Cejudo et al (2019), who indicated the superiority of a larger group of 10-11 year-olds over a group younger than 6-7 years of age performing PM tasks, and Smith et al (2010), who indicated the superiority of a youth group over two groups of children in performing the PM task. On the other hand, this result differs from Crawford et al (2003), who showed that there was no effect of age on the PRMQ scores.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results also showed that the third year middle school students outperformed in RM and PM. This result is in accordance with Cejudo et al (2019), who indicated the superiority of a larger group of 10-11 year-olds over a group younger than 6-7 years of age performing PM tasks, and Smith et al (2010), who indicated the superiority of a youth group over two groups of children in performing the PM task. On the other hand, this result differs from Crawford et al (2003), who showed that there was no effect of age on the PRMQ scores.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Khan (2014) found that metamemory affects both PM and RM in children with dyslexia much more than in the control group. Studies have been conducted in typical population (Anwar, 2005;Cejudo et al, 2019;Crawford et al, 2003;Riess et al, 2016;Smith et al, 2010) and their results varied in determining the presence of differences in PM according to age or gender. According to Riess et al (2016) research results, studies dealing with gender differences in PM are various, and these variations result from the diversity of the samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The COGTEL consists of six subtests that cover important domains of cognitive function and could predict academic achievement. For instance, there is evidence supporting the association between academic success and higher development in prospective memory (Cejudo, McDaniel, & Bajo, 2019), working memory (Brown, 2018;Schneider, & Niklas, 2017), verbal fluency (Bigozzi, Tarchi, Vagnoli, Valente, & Pinto, 2017), and inductive reasoning (Bhat, 2016;Gómez-Veiga, Chaves, Duque, & García Madruga, 2018). This reinforces our main hypothesis that a better COGTEL score is associated with an overall better academic achievement.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Regarding task difficulty, evidence suggests that activitybased PM tasks are the easiest, followed by event-based PM tasks, and then time-based PM tasks, which are most demanding (Cheie et al, 2021;Yang et al, 2011Yang et al, , 2019 all with children population). Having said that, activity-based PM tasks can at times be more difficult than event-based PM tasks (Brewer et al, 2011;Cejudo et al, 2019;Yang et al, 2013). This intriguing phenomenon may be related to salience and specificity of the activity-based PM cues.…”
Section: Event- Time- and Activity-based Pmmentioning
confidence: 99%