Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36484976›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2022

Distinctive Sans Forgetica font does not benefit memory accuracy in the DRM paradigm.

Mark J Huff, Nicholas P Maxwell, Anie Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Mark J HuffSchool of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Dr. #5025, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA. mark.huff@usm.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0155-7877
Nicholas P MaxwellSchool of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Dr. #5025, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA.
Anie MitchellSchool of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Dr. #5025, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A common method used by memory scholars to enhance retention is to make materials more challenging to learn-a benefit termed desirable difficulties. Recently, researchers have investigated the efficacy of Sans Forgetica, a perceptually disfluent/distinctive font which may increase processing effort required at study and enhance memory as a result. We examined the effects of Sans Forgetica relative to a standard control font (Arial) on both correct memory and associative memory errors using the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) false memory paradigm, to evaluate Sans Forgetica effects on overall memory accuracy. Across four experiments, which included nearly 300 participants, Sans Forgetica was found to have no impact on correct or false memory of DRM lists relative to a standard Arial control font, regardless of whether font type was manipulated within or between subjects or whether memory was assessed via free recall or recognition testing. Our results indicate that Sans Forgetica is ineffective for improving memory accuracy even when accounting for associative memory errors.

Indexed as

Mental RecallRecognition, PsychologyHumansMemoryResearch PersonnelAssociative memory errorsDistinctivenessFree recallRecognitionSans Forgetica

Identifiers

PMID36484976
PMCPMC9733772

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.