ArticleCognitive processing2020
Is it all in the details? Description content and false recognition errors.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The shrinking soundscape: New evidence for memory distortion of auditory scenes.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
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
Abstract
In three experiments, we examined the effect of embellished content on memory errors for thematically related items as well as whether an encoding manipulation, specifically instructions to visualize content, further affects those errors. Using a modified Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, participants listened to subsets of DRM items embedded within scene descriptions. Some descriptions embellished item connections, weaving them into cohesive scenes. Other descriptions only made general reference to scenes, mentioning the items in list-like format. Listening to more detailed descriptions, compared to general scene references, elicited higher false recognition errors (Experiments 1 and 3). However, when description details varied within the same encoding series, as expected, false recognition errors did not differ significantly (Experiments 2 and 3). Results further suggest that more detailed content was more vividly imagined, providing one possible mechanism for increases in false recognition (Experiment 3). Implications for theoretical discussions of encoding task effects on false recognition errors are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31902019What 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.