Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34854070›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2022

Can cue familiarity during recall failure prompt illusory recollective experience?

Andrew M Huebert, Katherine L McNeely-White, Anne M Cleary

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew M HuebertDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Andrew.Huebert@colostate.edu.
Katherine L McNeely-WhiteDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Anne M ClearyDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Colorado State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recognition memory is thought to involve two bases: familiarity (a sense that something was encountered previously) and recollection (retrieval of specifics or context). The present study investigated the hypothesis that a sensation of familiarity during cued-recall failure might increase illusory recollective experience. This hypothesis was driven, in part, by the suggestion in the literature that the type of familiarity-driven recollective confabulation often seen in populations experiencing memory impairment might actually be a common feature of normal human memory. We examined the hypothesis that as perceived cue familiarity increases during the uncertainty of target retrieval failure, so does illusory recollection of a contextual detail. Toward this end, we systematically varied the amount of cue-to-target(s) surface feature-overlap in the recognition without cued recall paradigm, which has been shown to increase perceived cue familiarity during target recall failure. Increasing perceived cue familiarity during target retrieval failure led to increased confidence in knowing a contextual detail that was not actually known. As perceived cue familiarity increased, so did erroneous confidence in knowing the arrow direction (left or right) that supposedly accompanied the unretrieved target (Experiment 1), the background color (Experiment 2), and whether an accompanying tone was high or low (Experiment 3).

Indexed as

CuesIllusionsHumansMemoryMental RecallRecognition, PsychologyFamiliarity in recognition memoryMemoryMetamemoryRecollection

Identifiers

PMID34854070
OpenAlexW3217517013

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.