Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33733434›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2021

In search of the proximal cause of the animacy effect on memory: Attentional resource allocation and semantic representations.

Heather C Rawlinson, Colleen M Kelley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Is a (Threatening) Picture (of an Animate Stimulus) Worth a Thousand Words? The Animacy Effect Using Eyetracking and Photographic Stimuli.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior
    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.

Heather C RawlinsonDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA. hcr17d@my.fsu.edu.
Colleen M KelleyDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People recall and recognize animate words better than inanimate words, perhaps because memory systems were shaped by evolution to prioritize memory for predators, people, and food sources. Attentional paradigms show an animacy advantage that suggests that the animacy advantage in memory stems from a prioritization of animate items when allocating attentional resources during encoding. According to the attentional prioritization hypothesis, the animacy effect should be even larger when attention is divided during encoding. Alternatively, the animacy effect could be due to more controlled processing during encoding, and so should be reduced when attention is divided during encoding. We tested the attentional prioritization hypothesis and the controlled processing hypothesis by manipulating attention during encoding in free recall (Experiment 1) and recognition (Experiment 2) but failed to find interactions between word type and attentional load in either free recall or recognition, contrary to the predictions from both hypotheses. We then tested whether the semantic representations of animate and inanimate items differ in terms of number of semantic features, using existing recall data from an item-level megastudy by Lau, Goh, and Yap (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (10), 2207-2222, 2018). Animate items have more semantic features, which partially mediated the relationship between animacy status and recall.

Indexed as

Mental RecallSemanticsAttentionHumansRecognition, PsychologyResource AllocationAnimacy effectDivided attentionFree recallNumber of featuresRecognition 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.