ArticleCognitive processing2023
The subjective feeling of a gap between conceptual and perceptual fluency is interpreted as a metacognitive signal of pastness.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metacognitive Feelings: A Predictive-Processing Perspective.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Review
- The experience of memory: it's unconscious origins.Frontiers in cognition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to address the following question: does the discrepancy between an expected word and its readability enhances or impair its memorability? We used an adaptation of the sentence stem paradigm (Whittlesea in J Exp Psycol 19:1235-1253, 1993) and manipulated the perceptual clarity of the words by introducing some Gaussian noise (Reber in Psycol Sci 9:45-48, 1998). The target words were semantically predictable or otherwise (conceptual fluency) or were easy or difficult to read (perceptual fluency). The first experiment was conducted to ensure that the two manipulated factors had an impact on the readability of the words. In particular, results showed that when the words were written against a noisy background their predictability enhanced the judgement of readability. The second experiment aimed to test the hypothesis that recognition would be influenced by the discrepancy between conceptual and perceptual fluency. The results showed that with a noisy background, the predictability of the target words had an impact on recognition judgement; with a clear background, the effect on the recognition judgement was caused by the non-predictability of the target words. Conversely, confidence in judgement increased when the two factors went in the same direction, that is, predictability with clarity and non-predictability with low clarity. The results showed that (a) depending on the task, the effects of conceptual and perceptual fluency did not go in the same direction; (b) the kinds of fluency (conceptual and perceptual) were not independent; and (c) recognition judgements were affected by the gap between conceptual and perceptual fluency.
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.