ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2019
Typicality: Stable structures and flexible functions.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the neural effects of typicality and predictability for face and object stimuli.PloS one · 2024Article
- Using concept typicality to explore semantic representation and control in healthy ageing.Cognitive processing · 2021Article
- The Cognitive Neuroscience of Stable and Flexible Semantic Typicality.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some research suggests typicality is stable, other research suggests it is malleable, and some suggests it is unstable. The two ends of this continuum-stability and instability-make somewhat contradictory claims. Stability claims that typicality is determined by our experience of decontextualized feature correlations in the world and is therefore fairly consistent. Instability claims that typicality depends on context and is therefore extremely inconsistent. After reviewing evidence for these two claims, we argue that typicality's stability and instability are not contradictory but rather complementary when they are understood as operating on two different levels. Stability reflects how information gets encoded into semantic memory-what we call structural typicality. Instability reflects the task-dependent recruitment of semantic knowledge-what we call functional typicality. Finally, we speculate on potential factors that may mediate between the recruitment of structural or functional typicality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30484081What 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.