Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409904›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Intention matters more than attention: Item-method directed forgetting of items at attended and unattended locations.

Tracy L Taylor, Jeff P Hamm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. 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

2 authors.

Tracy L TaylorDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, PO Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada. ttaylor2@dal.ca.
Jeff P HammSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study embedded attentional cues in the study phase of an item-method directed forgetting task. We used an unpredictive onset cue (Experiment 1), a predictive onset cue (Experiment 2), or a predictive central cue (Experiments 3-6) to direct attention to the left or right. In Experiments 1-5, this was followed by a pink or blue study word that required a speeded colour discrimination; in Experiment 6, it was followed by a pink or blue word or nonword that required a lexical decision. Each study word was followed by an instruction to Remember or Forget. A yes-no recognition test confirmed better recognition of to-be-remembered words than to-be-forgotten words; a cueing effect confirmed the effectiveness of predictive cues in allocating attentional resources. There was, however, no evidence that the directed forgetting effect differed for attended and unattended words: Encoding depends more on the memory intention formed after a study word has disappeared than on the availability of processing resources when that word first appears.

Indexed as

IntentionMental RecallCuesHumansMemoryRecognition, PsychologyAttentionEncodingIntentional forgettingItem-method directed forgetting

Identifiers

PMID33409904
PMCPMC7787245

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.