EXPRESS:在线评估基于时间的前瞻性记忆:实验室测试与网络测试的比较研究。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-11 DOI:10.1177/17470218231220578
Gianvito Laera, Alexandra Hering, Matthias Kliegel
{"title":"EXPRESS:在线评估基于时间的前瞻性记忆:实验室测试与网络测试的比较研究。","authors":"Gianvito Laera, Alexandra Hering, Matthias Kliegel","doi":"10.1177/17470218231220578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prospective memory (PM, i.e., the ability to remember and perform future intentions) is assessed mainly within laboratory settings; however, in the last two decades, several studies have started testing PM online. Most part of those studies focused on event-based PM (EBPM), and only a few assessed time-based PM (TBPM), possibly because time keeping is difficult to control or standardise without experimental control. Thus, it is still unclear whether time monitoring patterns in online studies replicate typical patterns obtained in laboratory tasks. In this study, we therefore aimed to investigate whether the behavioural outcome measures obtained from the traditional TBPM paradigm in the laboratory-accuracy and time monitoring-are comparable with an online version in a sample of 101 younger adults. Results showed no significant difference in TBPM performance in the laboratory versus online setting, as well as no difference in time monitoring. However, we found that participants were somewhat faster and more accurate at the ongoing task during the laboratory assessment, but those differences were not related to holding an intention in mind. The findings suggest that, although participants seemed generally more distracted when tested remotely, online assessment yielded similar results in key temporal characteristics and behavioural performance as for the laboratory assessment. The results are discussed in terms of possible conceptual and methodological implications for online testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"2214-2227"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529106/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing time-based prospective memory online: A comparison study between laboratory-based and web-based testing.\",\"authors\":\"Gianvito Laera, Alexandra Hering, Matthias Kliegel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231220578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Prospective memory (PM, i.e., the ability to remember and perform future intentions) is assessed mainly within laboratory settings; however, in the last two decades, several studies have started testing PM online. Most part of those studies focused on event-based PM (EBPM), and only a few assessed time-based PM (TBPM), possibly because time keeping is difficult to control or standardise without experimental control. Thus, it is still unclear whether time monitoring patterns in online studies replicate typical patterns obtained in laboratory tasks. In this study, we therefore aimed to investigate whether the behavioural outcome measures obtained from the traditional TBPM paradigm in the laboratory-accuracy and time monitoring-are comparable with an online version in a sample of 101 younger adults. Results showed no significant difference in TBPM performance in the laboratory versus online setting, as well as no difference in time monitoring. However, we found that participants were somewhat faster and more accurate at the ongoing task during the laboratory assessment, but those differences were not related to holding an intention in mind. The findings suggest that, although participants seemed generally more distracted when tested remotely, online assessment yielded similar results in key temporal characteristics and behavioural performance as for the laboratory assessment. The results are discussed in terms of possible conceptual and methodological implications for online testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2214-2227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529106/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231220578\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231220578","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前瞻性记忆(即:记忆和执行未来意图的能力)主要是在实验室环境中进行评估;然而,在过去二十年中,一些研究开始在线测试前瞻性记忆。其中大部分研究侧重于基于事件的前瞻性记忆,只有少数研究对基于时间的前瞻性记忆进行了评估,这可能是因为时间保持在没有实验控制的情况下很难控制或标准化。因此,目前还不清楚在线研究中的时间监测模式是否复制了实验室任务中的典型模式。因此,在本研究中,我们以 101 名年轻成年人为样本,旨在调查在实验室中通过传统的基于时间的前瞻性记忆范式获得的行为结果测量--准确性和时间监控--是否与在线版本具有可比性。结果表明,在实验室和在线环境下,基于时间的前瞻性记忆表现没有明显差异,在时间监测方面也没有差异。不过,我们发现在实验室评估中,参与者在进行中任务时的速度更快、更准确,但这些差异与心中的意图无关。研究结果表明,虽然参与者在接受远程测试时通常会更加分心,但在线评估在关键时间特征和行为表现方面的结果与实验室评估相似。本文从在线测试可能涉及的概念和方法方面对这些结果进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing time-based prospective memory online: A comparison study between laboratory-based and web-based testing.

Prospective memory (PM, i.e., the ability to remember and perform future intentions) is assessed mainly within laboratory settings; however, in the last two decades, several studies have started testing PM online. Most part of those studies focused on event-based PM (EBPM), and only a few assessed time-based PM (TBPM), possibly because time keeping is difficult to control or standardise without experimental control. Thus, it is still unclear whether time monitoring patterns in online studies replicate typical patterns obtained in laboratory tasks. In this study, we therefore aimed to investigate whether the behavioural outcome measures obtained from the traditional TBPM paradigm in the laboratory-accuracy and time monitoring-are comparable with an online version in a sample of 101 younger adults. Results showed no significant difference in TBPM performance in the laboratory versus online setting, as well as no difference in time monitoring. However, we found that participants were somewhat faster and more accurate at the ongoing task during the laboratory assessment, but those differences were not related to holding an intention in mind. The findings suggest that, although participants seemed generally more distracted when tested remotely, online assessment yielded similar results in key temporal characteristics and behavioural performance as for the laboratory assessment. The results are discussed in terms of possible conceptual and methodological implications for online testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Memory for health information: Influences of age, hearing aids, and multisensory presentation. Reasoning in social versus non-social domains and its relation to autistic traits. When is a causal illusion an illusion? Separating discriminability and bias in human contingency judgements. Advancing an account of hierarchical dual-task control: A focused review on abstract higher-level task representations in dual-task situations. The effect of chronic academic stress on attentional bias towards value-associated stimuli.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1