Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33535925›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2021

Time is of the essence: Exploring temporal and spatial organisation in episodic memory.

Dan Pa Clark, Davide Bruno

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Space and time in the similarity structure of memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dan Pa ClarkDepartment of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5613-8864
Davide BrunoSchool of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Merseyside, UK.
Liverpool Hope University · GBLiverpool John Moores University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is disagreement in the literature as to whether episodic memory maintains an inherent temporal organisation, that is, whether learned items are necessarily organised along some temporal dimension or whether temporal organisation is a task-specific occurrence. The current series of experiments explored this issue. In Experiment 1, we tested whether temporal or spatial contiguity was present in an incidental encoding task where either strategy (but not both together) could be employed at test. In Experiment 2, we attempted to facilitate the use of a spatial retrieval strategy at test by asking participants to recall the location where target items had been displayed at study, after incidental encoding. Experiment 3 explored the role of study-test congruency by informing participants at encoding that they would be tested on either their memory for the temporal sequence or spatial locations, and then testing both at retrieval. Finally, Experiment 4 employed a masking task at encoding to ensure participants could not predict the true nature of the task, despite it being incidental, and a surprise free recall task. Predominantly, participants displayed recall performance consistent with temporal contiguity, although there was evidence for spatial contiguity under certain conditions. These results are consistent with the notion that episodic memory has a stable and predictable temporal organisation.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicAttentionHumansMental Recallepisodic memorymemoryspatialTemporal

Identifiers

PMID33535925
PMCPMC8261772
OpenAlexW3126801428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.