Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38714636›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Memory from nonsense syllables to novels: A survey of retention.

Gabriel A Radvansky, Dani Parra, Abigail C Doolen

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Gabriel A RadvanskyDepartment of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 390 Corbett Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA. gradvans@nd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7846-839X
Dani ParraDepartment of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 390 Corbett Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Abigail C DoolenDepartment of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 390 Corbett Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Memory has been the subject of scientific study for nearly 150 years. Because a broad range of studies have been done, we can now assess how effective memory is for a range of materials, from simple nonsense syllables to complex materials such as novels. Moreover, we can assess memory effectiveness for a variety of durations, anywhere from a few seconds up to decades later. Our aim here is to assess a range of factors that contribute to the patterns of retention and forgetting under various circumstances. This was done by taking a meta-analytic approach that assesses performance across a broad assortment of studies. Specifically, we assessed memory across 256 papers, involving 916 data sets (e.g., experiments and conditions). The results revealed that exponential-power, logarithmic, and linear functions best captured the widest range of data compared with power and hyperbolic-power functions. Given previous research on this topic, it was surprising that the power function was not the best-fitting function most often. Contrary to what would be expected, a substantial amount of data also revealed either stable memory over time or improvement. These findings can be used to improve our ability to model and predict the amount of information retained in memory. In addition, this analysis of a large set of memory data provides a foundation for expanding behavioral and neuroimaging research to better target areas of study that can inform the effectiveness of memory.

Indexed as

Retention, PsychologyHumansSpeech PerceptionForgettingLoss functionsMemory

Identifiers

PMID38714636
PMCPMC11680664

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.