ArticleMemory & cognition2002
Phenomenal characteristics of guided imagery, natural imagery, and autobiographical memories.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remembering what did not happen: the role of hypnosis in memory recall and false memories formation.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Implications of lifestyle medicine in medical practice.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Review
- The role of temporal distance of the events on the spatiotemporal dynamics of mental time travel to one's personal past and future.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- School Memories of Preservice Teachers: An Analysis of Their Role in the Conceptions About the Relationships Between Emotions and Teaching/Learning Processes.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Mental Imagery and Brain Regulation-New Links Between Psychotherapy and Neuroscience.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- Nature-Based Guided Imagery as an Intervention for State Anxiety.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Words as cultivators of others minds.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research indicates that guided imagery experiences can be mistaken for actual experiences under some circumstances. One explanation for such effects is that memory representations of guided imagery and actual events contain similar phenomenal characteristics such as sensory and contextual details, making the source of the events less distinguishable. This study examined this prediction, comparing memory characteristic ratings for guided imagery experiences with those for memories of perceived and natural imagery events (e.g., fantasies). Results replicated previous findings for the difference between perceived and natural imagery memories. Guided imagery ratings were also lower than those for perceived memories for most sensory details (sound, smell, and taste) and temporal details. However, guided imagery ratings for reflective details were lower than both perceived and natural imagery memory ratings. Thus, guided imagery was similar to natural imagery with respect to sensory details, but similar to perceived memories with respect to reflective details.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.