Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131106›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023

The recognition effects of attribute ambiguity.

Minyu Chang, C J Brainerd

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Minyu ChangDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, 2001 Avenue McGill College, Montréal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada. minyu.chang@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7026-4197
C J BrainerdDepartment of Psychology and Human Neuroscience Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Recognition, PsychologySemanticsHumansMental RecallAttribute ambiguityAttribute intensityMegastudy dataRecognition memorySemantic attributes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.