Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35882746›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2023

How does attribute ambiguity improve memory?

C J Brainerd, M Chang, D M Bialer, X Liu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C J BrainerdDepartment of Psychology and Human Neuroscience Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. cb299@cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8358-7497
M ChangDepartment of Psychology and Human Neuroscience Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
D M BialerDepartment of Psychology and Human Neuroscience Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
X LiuDepartment of Psychology and Human Neuroscience Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The memory effects of semantic attributes (e.g., concreteness, familiarity, valence) have long been studied by manipulating their average perceived intensities, as quantified in word rating norms. The semantic ambiguity hypothesis specifies that the uncertainty as well as the intensity of semantic attributes is processed when words are encoded. Testing that hypothesis requires a normed measure of ambiguity, so that ambiguity and intensity can be manipulated independently. The standard deviation (SD) of intensity ratings has been used for that purpose, which has produced three characteristic ambiguity effects. Owing to the recency of such research, fundamental questions remain about the validity of this method of measuring ambiguity and about its process-level effects on memory. In a validity experiment, we found that the rating SDs of six semantic attributes (arousal, concreteness, familiarity, meaningfulness, negative valence, positive valence) passed tests of concurrent and predictive validity. In three memory experiments, we found that manipulating rating SDs had a specific effect on retrieval: It influenced subjects' ability to use reconstructive retrieval to recall words. That pattern was predicted by the current theoretical explanation of how ambiguity benefits memory.

Indexed as

Recognition, PsychologySemanticsArousalHumansMental RecallUncertaintyAttribute ambiguityDual-retrieval modelFuzzy-trace theoryReconstructive retrievalSemantic attributes

Identifiers

PMID35882746
OpenAlexW4288068966

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.