ArticlePloS one2021
The effect of encoding task on the forgetting of object gist and details.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the validity of the simplified conjoint-recognition model.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Content categorization for memory retrieval: A method for evaluating design performance.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One important feature of episodic memory is that it contains fine-grained and vividly recollected details. How to improve and maintain detailed information over time has been one of the central issues in memory research. Previous studies have inconsistent findings on whether detailed memory is forgotten more rapidly than gist memory. In this study, we investigated to what extent different encoding tasks modulated forgetting of gist and detailed information. In three experiments, participants were presented pictures of common objects and were asked to name them (Experiment 1), describe the details about them (Experiment 2) or imagine scenes associated with them (Experiment 3). After intervals of 10 minutes, one day, one week and one month, gist and detailed memories of the pictures were tested and assessed using a remember/know/guess judgement. The results showed that after the naming task, gist and detailed memories were forgotten at a similar rate, but after the description and the imagination tasks, detailed memory was forgotten at a slower rate than gist memory. The forgetting rate of gist memory was the slowest after the naming task, while that of detailed memory was the slowest after the description task. In addition, when three experiments were compared, the naming task enhanced the contributions of recollection and familiarity for gist memory, while the description task enhanced the contribution of familiarity for detailed memory. These results reveal the importance of the encoding task in the forgetting of gist and detailed information, and suggest a possible way to maintain perceptual details of objects at longer intervals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.