Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Laboratory tests of event-based prospective memory (ProM) require participants to perform actions in response to infrequent cues in a background task. We conducted three experiments to assess and improve the reliability of this popular procedure. In Experiment 1, we tested college students on 2 separate days and found that the alternate-forms reliability of ProM accuracy was quite low (r = .31), although general knowledge accuracy was more reliable (r = .89). In Experiment 2, a statistically significant difference in reliability emerged between conditions with a low (n = 6) versus a high (n = 30) number of ProM targets. Finally, lower ProM accuracy increased reliability in Experiment 3. Adopting these straightforward changes may enhance the search for individual differences in ProM.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03213920 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!