Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38691223›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2024

From silos to synergy: Integrating approaches to investigate the role of prior knowledge and expectations on episodic memory.

Carla Macias, Kimele Persaud

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. 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.

Carla MaciasPsychology Department, Rutgers University - Newark, Smith Hall, 101 Warren Street, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA. carla.macias@rutgers.edu.
Kimele PersaudPsychology Department, Rutgers University - Newark, Smith Hall, 101 Warren Street, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA.

Funding

Rutgers Presidental Postdoctoral Fellowship 303623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant progress in the investigation of how prior knowledge influences episodic memory has been made using three sometimes isolated (but not mutually exclusive) approaches: strictly adult behavioral investigations, computational models, and investigations into the development of the system. Here we point out that these approaches are complementary, each approach informs and is informed by the other. Thus, a natural next step for research is to combine all three approaches to further our understanding of the role of prior knowledge in episodic memory. Here we use studies of memory for expectation-congruent and incongruent information from each of these often disparate approaches to illustrate how combining approaches can be used to test and revise theories from the other. This domain is particularly advantageous because it highlights important features of more general memory processes, further differentiates models of memory, and can shed light on developmental change in the memory system. We then present a case study to illustrate the progress that can be made from integrating all three approaches and highlight the need for more endeavors in this vein. As a first step, we also propose a new computational model of memory that takes into account behavioral and developmental factors that can influence prior knowledge and episodic memory interactions. This integrated approach has great potential for offering novel insights into the relationship between prior knowledge and episodic memory, and cognition more broadly.

Indexed as

Memory, EpisodicAnticipation, PsychologicalHumansKnowledgeModels, PsychologicalAdult behavioral approachComputational modelsDevelopmentEpisodic memoryExpectation-congruentExpectation-incongruentPrior knowledge

Identifiers

PMID38691223
PMCPMC11680633

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.