You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Event-based focal versus nonfocal prospective-memory task embedded in lexical decision
Created By
TaskBeacon
Date Updated
2026-07-27
PsyFlow Version
local TaskBeacon checkout
PsychoPy Version
environment-managed
Modality
behavior
Language
Chinese instructions with English lexical stimuli
Voice Name
disabled
1. Task Overview
This task measures prospective memory: remembering to perform an intended action
when a future event occurs while attention is occupied by an ongoing task. Participants
make lexical decisions throughout. After a baseline block, they complete focal and
nonfocal prospective-memory blocks in counterbalanced order.
The focal intention is triggered by the exact word PACKET. The nonfocal intention
is triggered by the letter sequence TOR embedded in a word such as DOCTOR.
The intended action is performed on the neutral WAITING screen after the lexical
decision, which keeps ongoing-task accuracy and delayed-intention execution separable.
2. Task Flow
Block-Level Flow
Step
Participant-visible flow
Implementation detail
1
Lexical-decision instructions and practice
10 trials from assets/stimuli.csv; lexical feedback only
2
Baseline lexical-decision block
105 trials; no PM intention
3
Focal or nonfocal intention instruction
Order from participant parity; instruction stimulus matches block type
4
Embedded-figures distractor
distractor_instruction + embedded_figures; 120 s
5
Prospective-memory block
105 trials; targets at positions 25, 50, 75, and 100
6
Neutral break and second PM condition
Repeat steps 3-5 for the other cue focality
7
Completion and export
Summary screen; one reduced row per logical trial
Trial-Level Flow
Phase
Stimulus ID
Duration / response
Result
Lexical decision
letter_string
Up to 3 s; F nonword, J word
Ongoing-task accuracy and RT
Waiting
waiting
Up to 10 s; SPACE normally, / for PM cue
PM hit, miss, or false alarm
Continue
waiting
Conditional after /; SPACE, up to 10 s
Advances to next trial
Practice feedback
feedback_correct / feedback_incorrect
0.6 s; practice only
Lexical correctness
Controller Logic
Component
Rule
Adaptive controller
None
Trial planner
Deterministic build_plans() preserves target positions, lexicality ratio, and target identity
Counterbalancing
Odd participant IDs receive focal first; even IDs receive nonfocal first
Other Logic
Component
Rule
PM scoring
Hit, miss, and false alarm are scored independently of lexical accuracy
Data reduction
Each returned trial dictionary is one logical-trial row
Randomness
Concrete fillers are selected from a stable block seed before run_trial()
The task adapts the event-based prospective-memory protocol of Brewer et al. (2010).
Participants first completed an ongoing lexical-decision baseline. Each trial presented
one uppercase letter string, and participants classified it as a word or nonword using
the J and F keys, respectively. After the response, a neutral waiting screen was
shown and SPACE advanced the task.
Participants then encoded focal and nonfocal delayed intentions in counterbalanced
blocks. For the focal intention, the exact word PACKET served as the PM cue. For
the nonfocal intention, any word containing TOR served as the cue. Participants
executed the intention by pressing / during the waiting screen after classifying the
cue. A 120-second embedded-figures distractor separated intention encoding from task
performance, and PM instructions were not repeated after the distractor. Each formal
block contained 105 trials, with PM cues at positions 25, 50, 75, and 100.
Primary dependent variables are cue-detection accuracy by focality, PM false-alarm
rate, ongoing lexical accuracy and latency, and PM-related ongoing-task cost relative
to baseline. The unpublished filler lists and response deadlines were not available;
the included filler pool and finite safety windows are documented as inferences in
the evidence mappings.