Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32495321›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2020

Familiarity acts as a reduction in objective complexity.

Jing Zhang, Xiaonan L Liu, Matt So, Lynne M Reder

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Jing ZhangSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, 211189, China. zhangjing1026@seu.edu.cn.
Xiaonan L LiuCenter for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, Davis, 95618, CA, USA.
Matt SoDepartment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Lynne M RederDepartment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. reder@cmu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-complexity stimuli are thought to place extra demands on working memory when processing and manipulating such stimuli; however, operational definitions of complexity are not well established, nor are the measures that would demonstrate such effects. Here, we argue that complexity is a relative quantity that is affected by preexisting experience. Experiment 1 compared cued-recall performance for Chinese and English speakers when the stimuli involved Chinese features that varied in the number of strokes or involved Ethiopic features unfamiliar to both groups. Chinese pseudocharacters (two radicals) had half the strokes of Chinese pseudowords (two characters). The response terms were English words familiar to both groups. English speakers performed equivalently with the Ethiopic and pseudocharacters, but much worse on the pseudowords. In contrast, Chinese speakers performed equivalently with pseudowords or pseudocharacters, but worse with Ethiopic cues. Experiment 2 showed that the lack of a complexity effect for Chinese speakers was not due to greater ease of rehearsal of pseudowords compared with pseudocharacters. Experiment 3 ruled out that Chinese speakers are just better at learning paired associates involving Mandarin by demonstrating that while complexity did not affect them, other features of the stimuli did. Taken together, it appears that complexity is not an absolute property based on the number of visual elements, but rather a relative property affected by one's prior knowledge.

Indexed as

Mental RecallRecognition, PsychologyCuesHumansLearningMemory, Short-TermComplexityFamiliarityPrior experienceWorking memory

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.