Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31385240›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2020

How prior testing impacts misinformation processing: A dual-task approach.

Leamarie T Gordon, Vivek K Bilolikar, Taylor Hodhod, Ayanna K Thomas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Leamarie T GordonDepartment of Psychology, Assumption College, Worcester, MA, USA. lt.gordon@assumption.edu.
Vivek K BilolikarSidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Taylor HodhodHarvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ayanna K ThomasDepartment of Psychology, Tufts University, 490 Boston Ave, Medford, MA, 02155, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research suggests that testing prior to the presentation of misinformation influences how that misinformation is processed. The present study examined the relationship between testing, the demands of misinformation narrative processing, and memory for original and post-event information. Using response latencies to a secondary task, we tested whether prior testing influenced the available resources for secondary task processing. Additionally, we investigated whether changes in narrative processing were specific to critical details tested earlier. Participants engaged in an eyewitness memory paradigm in which half were tested prior to receiving the post-event narrative. Participants responded to the secondary task at specified time points during the narrative. All participants took a final memory test after listening to the post-event narrative. We found that testing interacted with the placement of the secondary task. When responding on the secondary task was closely linked to the presentation of previously tested critical details in the narrative, retrieval-enhanced suggestibility was reduced on tests of event memory (Experiment 1) and increased post-event information learning was revealed on tests of narrative memory (Experiment 2).

Indexed as

DeceptionAdultAttentionExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallPractice, PsychologicalPsychomotor PerformanceSpeech PerceptionVisual PerceptionYoung AdultInterim testingMisinformation effectProcessingRetrieval enhanced suggestibility

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.