Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29959616›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2018

Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model.

Mark J Huff, Andrew J Aschenbrenner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors.

Mark J HuffDepartment of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA. mark.huff@usm.edu.
Andrew J AschenbrennerDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our study examined processing effects in improving memory accuracy in older and younger adults. Specifically, we evaluated the effectiveness of item-specific and relational processing instructions relative to a read-only control task on correct and false recognition in younger and older adults using a categorized-list paradigm. In both age groups, item-specific and relational processing improved correct recognition versus a read-only control task, and item-specific encoding decreased false recognition relative to both the relational and read-only groups. This pattern was found in older adults despite overall elevated rates of false recognition. We then applied signal-detection and diffusion-modeling analyses, which separately utilized recognition responses and the latencies to those responses to estimate contributions of encoding and monitoring processes on recognition decisions. Converging evidence from both analyses demonstrated that item-specific processing benefits to memory accuracy were due to improvements of both encoding (estimates of d' and drift rate) and monitoring (estimates of lambda and boundary separation) processes, and, importantly, occurred similarly in both younger and older adults. Thus, older and younger adults showed similar encoding-based and test-based benefits of item-specific processing to enhance memory accuracy.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAgingFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMiddle AgedReadingRecognition, PsychologySignal Detection, PsychologicalYoung AdultDiffusion modelingDistinctivenessItem-specific processingRelational processingSignal detection

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.