Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38353909›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

Exploring the metamnemonic and phenomenal differences between transitional and mundane events.

Liangzi Shi, Norman R Brown, P J Charles Reimer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Liangzi ShiDepartment of Psychology, College of New Caledonia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada. shil1@cnc.bc.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0914-613X
Norman R BrownDepartment of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
P J Charles ReimerDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In two experiments, we systematically investigated the reasons why people retained certain autobiographical events in their memory, as well as the properties of those events and their predicted memorability. The first experiment used three methods (word-cued, free-recalled, and "memorable, interesting, and/or important") to retrieve event memories, and examined memories from three different time-frames: very recent (within past 7 days), recent (past 2 weeks and 6 months), and older events (at least one year). In addition, data were also collected for an important transitional event recently experienced by all participants ("starting university"). The results revealed that people had access to three types of event memories: memories for life transitions, memories for older distinctive events, and memories for recent mundane events. Participants reported remembering events that were distinctive, first-time experiences, emotionally impactful, or simply because they were recent. They also predicted that older events would be more resistant to forgetting than very recent and recent events. The second experiment examined participants' memorable and forgettable events, and found that memorable events tended to be older, while forgettable events were more likely to be recent. These findings suggested that many retrievable memorable autobiographical memories were neither important nor transitional in nature. The studies contribute to our understanding of people's metamnemonic knowledge about their autobiographical memories.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicMental RecallMetacognitionAdultFemaleHumansLife Change EventsMaleTime FactorsYoung AdultAutobiographical memoryMetamemoryReasons-for-Retention

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.