Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38010456›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024

The breadth of animacy in memory: New evidence from prospective memory.

Sara B Félix, Marie Poirier, James S Nairne, Josefa N S Pandeirada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 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. Is a (Threatening) Picture (of an Animate Stimulus) Worth a Thousand Words? The Animacy Effect Using Eyetracking and Photographic Stimuli.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior
    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

4 authors.

Sara B FélixWilliam James Center for Research, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal. sara.felix@ua.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9645-5787
Marie PoirierDepartment of Psychology, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
James S NairneDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.
Josefa N S PandeiradaWilliam James Center for Research, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies using retrospective memory tasks have revealed that animates/living beings are better remembered than are inanimates/nonliving things (the animacy effect). However, considering that memory is foremost future oriented, we hypothesized that the animacy effect would also occur in prospective memory (i.e., memory for future intentions). Using standard prospective memory (PM) procedures, we explored this hypothesis by manipulating the animacy status of the PM targets. Study 1a reports data collected from an American sample; these results were then replicated with a Portuguese sample (Study 1b). Study 2 employed a new procedure, and data were collected from a broader English-speaking sample. In these three studies, animate (vs. inanimate) targets consistently led to a better PM performance, revealing, for the first time, that the animacy advantage extends to PM. These results strengthen the adaptive approach to memory and stress the need to consider animacy as an important variable in memory studies.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicAdultFemaleHumansIntentionMalePortugalUnited StatesYoung AdultAdaptive memoryAnimacy effectProspective memory

Identifiers

PMID38010456
PMCPMC11192816

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.