ArticleMemory & cognition2020
Strategies to resolve recall failures for proper names: New data.
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.
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.
- Image Clarity Affects Tip-of-the-Tongue Rates for Faces.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personal names are particularly susceptible to retrieval failures. Studies describing people's spontaneous strategies for resolving such failures have indicated that people frequently search for semantic or contextual information about the target person. However, previous experimental studies have shown that, while providing phonological information may help resolve a name-recall failure, by contrast, providing semantic information is usually not helpful. In the first study, in order to reduce a bias present in previous studies of spontaneous strategies, explicit instructions were given to participants, specifying that the focus of the study was on a voluntary search for information. Participants reported strategically searching for semantic/contextual strategies when they tried to resolve a name-retrieval failure more often than they reported searching for phonological/orthographic information. In addition, phonological/orthographic strategies were perceived as more difficult than semantic/contextual strategies. In a second experiment, we investigated whether retrieving phonological information by oneself is objectively difficult in a face-naming task: in the event of retrieval failure, participants were instructed to search for phonological information in some trials and for semantic information in other trials. Participants recalled semantic information in 94% of the trials when instructed to search for semantic information. By contrast, when instructed to search for phonological information, participants remained unable to recall any correct piece of phonological information in about 55% of the trials. This result shows that the retrieval of phonological information is objectively difficult. This difficulty could explain why people do not privilege searching for phonology to resolve name-retrieval failures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32514723What 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.