The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cue-Focused and Reflexive-Associative Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval.
Abstract
Several theories of event-based prospective memory were evaluated in 3 experiments. The results depended on the association between the target event and the intended action. For associated target-action pairs (a) preexposure of nontargets did not reduce prospective memory, (b) divided attention did not reduce prospective memory, (c) prospective memory was better than when the target event and intended action were not associated, and (d) prospective memory was characterized by retrieval of the precise intended action. These results converge on the view that retrieval is mediated by a reflexive-associative process. In contrast, for unassociated pairs (a) preexposure of nontargets reduced prospective memory, and (b) divided attention reduced prospective memory. These results implicate cue-focused retrieval processes and are most consistent with a discrepancy-plus-search model. The entire pattern implicates both cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes and more generally supports a multiprocess framework of prospective memory (M. A. McDaniel & G. O. Einstein, 2000).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.
Mandler, G. (1980) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.87.3.252 · Cited by 2,849
DEFICITS IN STRATEGY APPLICATION FOLLOWING FRONTAL LOBE DAMAGE IN MAN
SHALLICE, T., & BURGESS, P. W. (1991) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/114.2.727 · Cited by 2,017
Normal aging and prospective memory.
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.16.4.717 · Cited by 1,391
Self-citationRepresentation of intentions: persisting activation in memory.
Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (1993) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1211 · Cited by 503
Prospective memory: When reminders fail
Guynn, M. J., Mcdaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1998) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03201140 · Cited by 168
Self-citation
Cited by
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., & Breneiser, J. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.327 · Cited by 548
Self-citationProspective Memory: Multiple Retrieval Processes
Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x · Cited by 441
Self-citationTobias, R. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0015512 · Cited by 165
Transparent Meta-Analysis of Prospective Memory and Aging
Uttl, B. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001568 · Cited by 135
Does episodic future thinking improve prospective remembering?
Neroni, M. A., Gamboz, N., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2014) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.12.001 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O., & Breneiser, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 605-614
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2076907775
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 25.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cue-Focused and Reflexive-Associative Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.605
- The paper
- McDaniel, M. A., Guynn, M. J., Einstein, G. O., & Breneiser, J. (2004). Cue-Focused and Reflexive-Associative Processes in Prospective Memory Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.605
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.