ArticleMemory & cognition2023
Forgetting rates of gist and peripheral episodic details in prose recall.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective duration judgments of naturalistic events depend on memories of event boundaries.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Event segmentation applications in large language model enabled automated recall assessments.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- The cognitive neuroscience of memory representations.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025Review
- The semantic structure of events consistently influences episodic memory recall over time in young and older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Associations between accelerated forgetting, amyloid deposition and brain atrophy in older adults.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Effect of levels-of-processing on rates of forgetting.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Rate of forgetting is independent from initial degree of learning across different age groups.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a seminal study, Slamecka and McElree showed that the degree of initial learning of verbal material affected the intercepts but not the slopes of forgetting curves. However, more recent work has reported that memories for central events (gist) and memory for secondary details (peripheral) were forgotten at different rates over periods of days, with gist memory retained more consistently over time than details. The present experiments aimed to investigate whether qualitatively different types of memory scoring (gist vs. peripheral) are forgotten at different rates in prose recall. In three experiments, 232 participants listened to two prose narratives and were subsequently asked to freely recall the stories. In the first two experiments participants were tested repeatedly after days and a month, while in the third experiment they were tested only after a month to control for repeated retrieval. Memory for gist was higher than for peripheral details, which were forgotten at a faster rate over a month, with or without the presence of intermediate recall. Moreover, repeated retrieval had a significant benefit on both memory for gist and peripheral details. We conclude that the different nature of gist and peripheral details leads to a differential forgetting in prose free recall, while repeated retrieval does not have a differential effect on the retention of these different episodic details.
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.