Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36599926›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2023

Ecological validity of don't remember and don't know for distinguishing accessibility- versus availability-based retrieval failures in older and younger adults: knowledge for news events.

Sharda Umanath, Jennifer H Coane, Mark J Huff, Tamar Cimenian, Kai Chang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Sharda Umanath *Department of Psychological Science, Claremont McKenna College, 850 Columbia Ave, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA. sumanath@cmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6699-4357
Jennifer H Coane *Department of Psychology, Colby College, Waterville, Me, USA.
Mark J HuffDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA.
Tamar CimenianDepartment of Psychology, Colby College, Waterville, Me, USA.
Kai ChangDepartment of Psychology, Colby College, Waterville, Me, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With pursuit of incremental progress and generalizability of findings in mind, we examined a possible boundary for older and younger adults' metacognitive distinction between what is not stored in memory versus merely inaccessible with materials that are not process pure to knowledge or events: information regarding news events. Participants were asked questions about public events such as celebrity news, tragedies, and political events that were widely experienced in the previous 10-12 years, responding "I don't know" (DK) or "I don't remember" (DR) when retrieval failed. Memories of these events are relatively recently acquired in rich, naturalistic contexts and are likely not fully separated from episodic details. When retrieval failed, DR items were recognized with higher accuracy than DK items, both immediately and 2 years later, confirming that self-reported not remembering reflects failures of accessibility, whereas not knowing better captures a lack of availability. In fact, older adults distinguished between the causes of retrieval failures more precisely than younger adults. Together, these findings advance the reliability, validity, and generalizability of using DR and DK as a metacognitive tool to address the phenomenological experience and behavioral consequences of retrieval failures of information that contains both semantic and episodic features. Implications for metacognition in aging and related constructs like familiarity, remembering, and knowing are discussed.

Indexed as

Mental RecallMetacognitionAgedAgingHumansRecognition, PsychologyReproducibility of ResultsAccessibilityAgingAvailabilityEvent memoryPhenomenologyRetrieval failures

Identifiers

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.