Episodic Memory
Prospective Memory Task
Also called: prospective memory paradigm, event-based prospective memory, time-based prospective memory, memory for intentions
Measure remembering to act on a plan while busy: participants sort numbers and must catch rare framed numbers and press a key at each full minute.
8-10 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 177
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 9
What it measures
Measures remembering to carry out a planned action while busy with another task. Participants sort numbers as odd or even, first alone and then while remembering to press SPACEBAR for a number in a yellow frame and T at each full minute, with a clock they can check.
Constructs
- Prospective memory
- Memory for intentions
- Strategic monitoring
Research uses
- Aging and memory research
- Within-study group comparison
- Research on everyday memory in clinical groups
How the paradigm works
The prospective memory task measures remembering to carry out a planned action in the middle of another task. Numbers from 1 to 9 appear one at a time, and participants press F for odd and J for even, the ongoing task. After 10 practice trials with feedback, they sort 60 numbers with nothing else to remember, the baseline part. Then they are told two things to remember for the next part, and the part begins at once.
More about the paradigm
In the prospective memory part (240 numbers, standard), 8 numbers appear inside a yellow frame, and participants should press SPACEBAR instead of F or J. The frames fall at seeded random places, one in each eighth of the part after the first 20 numbers, so the intention is held for a while before the first one. Participants also press T each time a full minute of the part has passed, and can press C at any time to see a clock with the time since the part began. A T or C press takes the number away for a moment, and the same number comes back to be sorted. Each number stays until a key or 3,000 ms, with a 400 ms cross between numbers. The time task can be turned off, leaving the framed numbers only. The frame is a cue the odd or even decision does not need, a nonfocal cue in the sense of McDaniel and Einstein (2000).
The main score is the share of framed numbers answered with SPACEBAR. The time task gives the share of full minutes with a T press within 10 seconds either side, and the number of clock checks. The cost of holding the intentions is the mean correct odd or even response time in the prospective memory part minus the baseline part (Smith 2003), leaving out framed numbers, the number after each, and numbers shown again after T or C. Accuracy in each part is also given. Responses under 100 ms count as anticipations. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Framed Numbers Caught%
- Share of framed numbers answered with SPACEBAR at or after 100 ms.
- Higher is better
- Framed Numbers Caught, Countcount
- Framed numbers answered with SPACEBAR.
- Higher is better
- Framed Numbers Showncount
- Framed numbers in the scored run.
- Informational
- Framed Number Response Timems
- Mean response time of SPACEBAR presses to framed numbers.
- Lower is faster
- SPACEBAR Without a Framecount
- SPACEBAR presses on numbers without a frame.
- Lower is better
- Minutes Caught%
- Share of full minutes of the part with a T press within 10 seconds either side. A minute counts once its window fits in the part.
- Higher is better
- Minutes Caught, Countcount
- Full minutes with a T press in time.
- Higher is better
- Minutes Countedcount
- Full minutes of the part whose window fits in it.
- Informational
- T Presses Off the Minutecount
- T presses more than 10 seconds from any full minute.
- Lower is better
- Clock Checkscount
- C presses to see the clock.
- Informational
- Cost to the Ongoing Taskms
- Mean correct odd or even response time in the prospective memory part minus the baseline part.
- Positive values mean slower sorting while holding the intentions
- Baseline Response Timems
- Mean correct odd or even response time in the baseline part.
- Lower is faster
- Prospective Memory Part Response Timems
- Mean correct odd or even response time in the prospective memory part, framed numbers and the number after each left out.
- Lower is faster
- Baseline Accuracy%
- Share of numbers sorted correctly in the baseline part.
- Higher is better
- Prospective Memory Part Accuracy%
- Share of unframed numbers sorted correctly in the prospective memory part.
- Higher is better
- Accuracy Cost%
- Baseline accuracy minus prospective memory part accuracy.
- Positive values mean more errors while holding the intentions
- Length of the Partseconds
- Time from the start of the prospective memory part to its last answer.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Responses under 100 ms from a number's onset.
- Lower is better
- Missed Responsescount
- Numbers with no key press within 3,000 ms.
- Lower is better
- Baseline Numberstrials
- Numbers in the scored baseline part.
- Informational
- Planned Numberstrials
- Numbers the prospective memory part planned to show.
- Informational
- Total Numberstrials
- Numbers shown in the scored prospective memory part.
- Under 90% of the planned numbers is invalid
Use and evidence
177 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 32% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 133 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 30 |
| 2024 | 37 |
| 2023 | 38 |
| 2022 | 34 |
| 2021 | 38 |
| 2020 | 31 |
| 2019 | 58 |
| 2018 | 54 |
| 2017 | 49 |
| 2016 | 68 |
| 2015 | 62 |
| 2014 | 74 |
| 2013 | 75 |
| 2012 | 54 |
| 2011 | 80 |
| 2010 | 42 |
| 2009 | 57 |
| 2008 | 49 |
| 2007 | 31 |
| 2006 | 41 |
| 2005 | 24 |
| 2004 | 22 |
| 2003 | 17 |
| 2002 | 17 |
| 2001 | 13 |
| 2000 | 14 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 5
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 51
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 9
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Ongoing task
- Numbers from 1 to 9, one at a time, odd and even in equal numbers: F for odd, J for even.
- Display
- Each number until a key or 3,000 ms, with a 400 ms cross between numbers.
- Parts
- 10 practice trials with feedback, then 60 numbers with nothing else to remember (standard; 40 to 120), then the prospective memory part.
- Event cue
- 8 framed numbers in the 240 numbers of the prospective memory part (standard; 160 to 320), one in each eighth after the first 20 numbers. Participants press SPACEBAR instead of F or J.
- Time task
- Press T at each full minute of the part, with C to show a clock for 1,000 ms. A T or C press brings the same number back. A setting turns the time task off.
- On time
- A T press within 10 seconds of a full minute, for each minute whose window fits in the part.
- Score
- Framed numbers caught; minutes caught and clock checks; the cost to the ongoing task, its mean correct response time in the prospective memory part minus the part before.
No published test's items or names are used: the numbers, the frame and the clock are ours, and the parts follow the laboratory method of Einstein and McDaniel (1990) and Einstein and colleagues (1995).
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the odd or even answers of prospective_memory_baseline and prospective_memory_test from the scored run, F or J (chance 50%) within 3,000 ms, the last showing of each unframed number. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One key on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule. Framed numbers, and T and C presses, are what the test measures and are not judged here. Fewer than 90% of the planned numbers invalidates. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one. Missing a framed number or a full minute is the result the test measures, so it never invalidates.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Numbers in the prospective memory part | 240 | 160 to 320 |
| Numbers in the part before | 60 | 40 to 120 |
| Time task | On | On or off |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Prospective Memory Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Einstein and McDaniel, 1990; Einstein et al., 1995), with the standard settings (numbers in the prospective memory part: 240; numbers in the part before: 60; time task: On). The main score was framed numbers caught (share of framed numbers answered with SPACEBAR at or after 100 ms).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 717-726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.717An event-based intention laid over an ongoing task.
- Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Richardson, S. L., Guynn, M. J., & Cunfer, A. R. (1995). Aging and prospective memory: Examining the influences of self-initiated retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 996-1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.996The time-based task with a clock participants can check.
- McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S127-S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.775Cues the ongoing task does or does not need to process.
- Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347The cost to the ongoing task, against a part without the intention.
- Henry, J. D., MacLeod, M. S., Phillips, L. H., & Crawford, J. R. (2004). A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychology and Aging, 19(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.27
Source papers
- Henry JD, MacLeod MS, Phillips LH, Crawford JR (2004). A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychology and Aging, 19(1):27-39.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Prospective Memory Task take?
About 8 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Framed Numbers Caught, Framed Numbers Caught, Count, Framed Numbers Shown, Framed Number Response Time, SPACEBAR Without a Frame, Minutes Caught, Minutes Caught, Count, Minutes Counted, T Presses Off the Minute, Clock Checks, Cost to the Ongoing Task, Baseline Response Time, Prospective Memory Part Response Time, Baseline Accuracy, Prospective Memory Part Accuracy, Accuracy Cost, Length of the Part, Anticipations, Missed Responses, Baseline Numbers, Planned Numbers and Total Numbers. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Prospective Memory Task used in research?
177 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 32% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 133 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Prospective Memory Task have?
In the published research, 5 papers report its test-retest reliability and 9 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Numbers in the prospective memory part (160 to 320), numbers in the part before (40 to 120) and time task (On or off). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.