ArticleMemory & cognition2018
Item frequency in probe-recognition memory search: Converging evidence for a role of item-response learning.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In short-term probe-recognition tasks, observers make speeded old-new recognition judgments for items that are members of short lists. However, long-term memory (LTM) for items from previous lists influences current-list performance. The current experiment pursued the nature of these long-term influences-in particular, whether they emerged from item-familiarity or item-response-learning mechanisms. Subjects engaged in varied-mapping (VM) and consistent-mapping (CM) short-term probe-recognition tasks (e.g., Schneider & Shiffrin, Psychological Review, 84, 1-66, 1977). The key manipulation was to vary the frequency with which individual items were presented across trials. We observed a striking dissociation: Whereas increased presentation frequency led to benefits in performance for both old and new test probes in CM search, it resulted in interference effects for both old and new test probes in VM search. Formal modeling suggested that a form of item-response learning took place in both conditions: Each presentation of a test probe led to the storage of that test probe-along with its associated "old" or "new" response-as an exemplar in LTM. These item-response pairs were retrieved along with current-list items in driving observers' old-- recognition judgments. We conclude that item-response learning is a core component of the LTM mechanisms that influence CM and VM memory search.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29264863What 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.