ArticleMemory & cognition2024
The effect of target detection task on memory encoding varies in different stimulus onset asynchronies.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The attentional boost effect: current landscape and future directions.Cognitive processing · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The attentional boost effect (ABE) and action-induced memory enhancement (AIME) suggest that memory performance for target-paired items is superior to that for distractor-paired items when participants performed a target detection task and a memory encoding task simultaneously. Though the memory enhancement has been well established, the temporal dynamics of how the target detection task influenced memory encoding remains unclear. To investigate this, we manipulated the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between detection stimuli and the words to be memorized using a remember/know study-test paradigm, and we focused primarily on memory performance for the words that appeared after the detection response. The results showed that target-paired memory enhancement was robust from SOA = 0 s to SOA = 0.75 s, but was not significant when examined by itself in Experiment 1A or weakened in Experiment 2 and the conjoint analysis when SOA = 1 s, which were only observed in R responses. The post-response memory enhancement still existed when there was no temporal overlap between the word and target, similar to the magnitude of memory enhancement observed with temporal overlap. These results supported the view that target-paired memory enhancement (recollection rather than familiarity) occurred irrespective of whether the items appeared simultaneously with the targets or within a short period after the response, and the temporal overlap of the word and target was not necessary for post-response memory enhancement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38713453What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.