Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30796509›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2020

Selective attention effects on recognition: the roles of list context and perceptual difficulty.

Hanae Davis, Tamara M Rosner, Maria C D'Angelo, Ellen MacLellan, Bruce Milliken

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating the learning of stimulus-control associations through incidental memory of reinforcement events.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors.

Hanae DavisDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada. davishc@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3274-8796
Tamara M RosnerDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada.
Maria C D'AngeloDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada.
Ellen MacLellanDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada.
Bruce MillikenDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two recent studies reported superior recognition memory for items that were incongruent targets than for items that were congruent targets in a prior incidental study phase (Krebs et al. in Cereb Cortex (New York, NY) 25(3):833-843, 2015; Rosner et al. in Psychol Res 79(3):411-424, 2015). The present study examined this effect further by addressing two issues. First, we examined whether this effect is sensitive to the list context in which congruent and incongruent items are presented. In Experiment 1, this issue was addressed by manipulating the relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials in the study phase. In Experiments 2A and 2B, the same issue was examined by contrasting randomly intermixed and blocked manipulations of congruency. The results of these experiments, as well as a trial-to-trial sequence analysis, demonstrate that the recognition advantage for incongruent over congruent items is robust and remarkably insensitive to list context. Second, we examined recognition of incongruent and congruent items relative to a single word baseline condition. Incongruent (Experiment 3A) and congruent (Experiment 3B) items were both better recognized than single word items, though this effect was substantially stronger for incongruent items. These results suggest that perceptual processing difficulty, rather than interference caused by different target and distractor identities on its own, contributes to the enhanced recognition of incongruent items. Together, the results demonstrate that processes that are sensitive to perceptual processing difficulty of items but largely insensitive to list context produce heightened recognition sensitivity for incongruent targets.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionFemaleHumansMaleMemoryOntarioReaction TimeRecognition, PsychologyVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

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.