ArticleMemory & cognition2023
How does attribute ambiguity improve memory?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of ambiguous valence, origin, and activation in behavioral and eye-tracking measurements during N-back task.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Semantic centrality and emotional valence contribute to word memorability in an associative memory task for Chinese words.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Ratings of valence, arousal, happiness, anger, fear, sadness, disgust, and surprise for 24,000 Dutch words.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.