Prospective memory, retrospective memory, and individual differences in cognitive abilities, personality, and psychopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although individual differences in processing speed, working memory, intelligence, and other cognitive functions were found to explain individual differences in retrospective memory (RetM), much less is known about their relationship with prospective memory (ProM). Moreover, the studies that investigated the relationship between ProM and cognitive functions arrived to contradictory conclusions. The relationship between ProM, personality, and psychopathology is similarly unsettled. Meta-analytic reviews of the relationships of ProM with aging and personality suggest that the contradictory findings may be due to widespread methodological problems plaguing ProM research including the prevalent use of inefficient, unreliable binary measures; widespread ceiling effects; failure to distinguish between various ProM subdomains (e.g., episodic ProM versus vigilance/monitoring); various confounds; and, importantly, small sample sizes, resulting in insufficient statistical power. Accordingly, in a large scale study with nearly 1,200 participants, we investigated the relationship between episodic event-cued ProM, episodic RetM, and fundamental cognitive functions including intelligence, personality, and psychopathology, using reliable continuous measures of episodic event-cued ProM. Our findings show that (a) continuous measures of episodic event-cued ProM were much more reliable than binary measures, (b) episodic event-cued ProM was associated with measures of processing speed, working memory, crystallized and fluid intelligence, as well as RetM, and that such associations were similar for ProM and RetM, (c) personality factors did not improve prediction of neither ProM nor RetM beyond the variance predicted by cognitive ability, (d) symptoms of psychopathology did not improve the prediction of ProM although they slightly improved the prediction of RetM, and (e) participants' sex was not associated with ProM but showed small correlations with RetM. In addition to advancing our theoretical understanding of ProM, our findings highlight the need to avoid common pitfalls plaguing ProM research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".