Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25911444›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2015

Dynamic memory searches: Selective output interference for the memory of facts.

William R Aue, Amy H Criss, Melissa A Prince

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

William R AueDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA. william.aue@gmail.com.
Amy H CrissDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA.
Melissa A PrinceSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The benefits of testing on later memory performance are well documented; however, the manner in which testing harms memory performance is less well understood. This research is concerned with the finding that accuracy decreases over the course of testing, a phenomena termed "output interference" (OI). OI has primarily been investigated with episodic memory, but there is limited research investigating OI in measures of semantic memory (i.e., knowledge). In the current study, participants were twice tested for their knowledge of factual questions; they received corrective feedback during the first test. No OI was observed during the first test, when participants presumably searched semantic memory to answer the general-knowledge questions. During the second test, OI was observed. Conditional analyses of Test 2 performance revealed that OI was largely isolated to questions answered incorrectly during Test 1. These were questions for which participants needed to rely on recent experience (i.e., the feedback in episodic memory) to respond correctly. One possible explanation is that episodic memory is more susceptible to the sort of interference generated during testing (e.g., gradual changes in context, encoding/updating of items) relative to semantic memory. Alternative explanations are considered.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicAdultFeedback, PsychologicalHumansKnowledgeMental RecallSemanticsInterferenceKnowledgeRecognitionTesting

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.