Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31902019›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2020

Is it all in the details? Description content and false recognition errors.

Rebecca Brooke Bays, Mary Ann Foley, Annelise Cohen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

3 authors.

Rebecca Brooke BaysDepartment of Psychology, Oglethorpe University, 4484 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30319, USA. rbays@Oglethorpe.edu.
Mary Ann FoleySkidmore College, Saratoga Springs, USA.
Annelise CohenSkidmore College, Saratoga Springs, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation BCS 1023890
6 · The paper itself

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

CognitionRecognition, PsychologyAdultAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansImaginationMaleMemoryMental RecallRepression, PsychologyDescription contentFalse recognitionImagerySource monitoring

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.