Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37870806›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychology2024

Multitrial free recall for evaluating memory.

R T Adrogue, N Herz, D J Halpern, J Tracy, M J Kahana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Specialized recall procedures.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
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.

R T AdrogueDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-8851-756X
N HerzDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.
D J HalpernDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.
J TracyDepartment of Neuropsychology, Thomas Jefferson University.
M J KahanaDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0001-8122-9525

Funding

Targeted closed-loop intracranial brain-stimulation to improve episodic memoryR01NS106611 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI KAHANA, MICHAEL JACOB · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
Model Development for Prediction of Surgical Outcome in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Patients: Incorporation of the Correlation between Post-Surgical Reorganization Phenotypes and Pre-Surgical DataR01NS112816 · NINDS · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI TRACY, JOSEPH I. · 2019 to 2023
$2.3M
Associative Processes in Episodic MemoryRF1MH055687 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI KAHANA, MICHAEL JACOB · 2025 to 2025
$1.1M
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Restoring Active Memory ProgramFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthNIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH055687NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS106611NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS112816
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMuch of our knowledge concerning the neural basis of human memory derives from lab-based verbal recall tasks. Outside of the lab, clinicians use validated and normed neuropsychological tests to assess patients' memory function and to evaluate clinical interventions. Here we sought to establish the clinical validity of examining memory through multitrial free recall of semantically organized and unrelated word lists.

methodWe compare memory performance in multitrial free recall tasks with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and the California Verbal Learning Test, two common neuropsychological tests aimed at evaluating memory function in clinical settings. We compare predictive validity between the tasks by evaluating deficits in a patient sample and examining age-related declines in memory. We additionally compare test-retest reliability, establish convergent validity, and show the emergence of common recall dynamics between the tasks.

resultsWe demonstrate that both laboratory free recall tasks have better predictive validity and test-retest reliability than the established neuropsychological tests. We further show that all tasks have good convergent validity and reveal core memory processes, including temporal and semantic organization. However, we also demonstrate the benefits of repeated trials for evaluating the dynamics of memory search and their neuropsychological sequelae.

conclusionsThese results provide evidence for the clinical validity of lab-based multitrial free recall tasks and highlight their psychometric benefits over neuropsychological measures. Based on these results, we discuss the need to bridge the gap between clinical understanding of putative mechanisms underlying memory disorders and neuroscientific findings obtained using lab-based free recall tasks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Mental RecallVerbal LearningHumansMemoryNeuropsychological TestsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37870806
PMCPMC12133027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.