ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023
The recognition effects of attribute ambiguity.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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.
- 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
- Unveiling the intensity-ambiguity relationships among affective and lexico-semantic variables in Chinese characters and the character-word relationships in Chinese two-character words.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When examining memory effects of semantic attributes, it is common practice to manipulate normed mean (M) ratings of the attributes (i.e., attribute intensity) in learning materials. Meanwhile, the standard deviations (SDs) of attribute ratings (i.e., attribute ambiguity) are usually treated as indexes of measurement error. However, some recent research found that recall accuracy varied as a function of both the intensity and ambiguity of semantic attributes such as valence, categorization, concreteness, and meaningfulness. These findings challenged the traditional interpretation of attribute rating SDs as noise indexes. In the current study, we examined the recognition effects of ambiguity, intensity, and Ambiguity × Intensity interactions for 21 attributes using mega study data for over 5,000 words. Our results showed that attribute ambiguity had reliable recognition effects beyond those of attribute intensity, and that it sometimes explained more unique variance in recognition than attribute intensity. Thus, we concluded that attribute ambiguity is a distinct psychological dimension of semantic attributes, which is processed separately from attribute intensity during encoding. Two theoretical hypotheses had been proposed for the memory effects of attribute ambiguity. We discuss the implications of our findings for the two theoretical hypotheses about how attribute ambiguity influences episodic memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37131106What 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.