Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35419739›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2023

Forgetting rates of gist and peripheral episodic details in prose recall.

Riccardo Sacripante, Robert H Logie, Alan Baddeley, Sergio Della Sala

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The cognitive neuroscience of memory representations.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Riccardo SacripanteHuman Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK. s1772095@sms.ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8158-7971
Robert H LogieHuman Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK.
Alan BaddeleyDepartment of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
Sergio Della SalaHuman Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Memory, EpisodicMental RecallHumansLearningEpisodic memoryGistLong-term forgettingProse recallRepeated retrieval

Identifiers

PMID35419739
PMCPMC9944610
OpenAlexW4223948771

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.