Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715827›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2024

Describing and understanding the time course of the property listing task.

Enrique Canessa, Sergio E Chaigneau, Sebastián Moreno

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2024. 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.

Enrique CanessaCenter for Cognition Research (CINCO), School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Presidente Errázuriz 3328, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile. ecanessa@uai.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4931-5025
Sergio E ChaigneauCenter for Cognition Research (CINCO), School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Presidente Errázuriz 3328, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.
Sebastián MorenoFaculty of Engineering and Science, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Viña del Mar, Chile.

Funding

Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo 1200139James S. McDonnell Foundation https://doi.org/10.37717/2022-3930
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To study linguistically coded concepts, researchers often resort to the Property Listing Task (PLT). In a PLT, participants are asked to list properties that describe a concept (e.g., for DOG, subjects may list "is a pet", "has four legs", etc.). When PLT data is collected for many concepts, researchers obtain Conceptual Properties Norms (CPNs), which are used to study semantic content and as a source of control variables. Though the PLT and CPNs are widely used across psychology, only recently a model that describes the listing course of a PLT has been developed and validated. That original model describes the listing course using order of production of properties. Here we go a step beyond and validate the model using response times (RT), i.e., the time from cue onset to property listing. Our results show that RT data exhibits the same regularities observed in the previous model, but now we can also analyze the time course, i.e., dynamics of the PLT. As such, the RT validated model may be applied to study several similar memory retrieval tasks, such as the Free Listing Task, Verbal Fluidity Task, and to research related cognitive processes. To illustrate those kinds of analyses, we present a brief example of the difference in PLT's dynamics between listing properties for abstract versus concrete concepts, which shows that the model may be fruitfully applied to study concepts.

Indexed as

MemorySemanticsHumansReaction TimeConceptsConceptual properties normsMathematical modelProperty listing taskSemantic access

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.