Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38752526›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2024

Remembering visual and linguistic common ground in shared history.

J Jessica Wang, Lin Zhao, Justine Alegado, Joseph Webb, James Wright, Ian A Apperly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 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

6 authors.

J Jessica WangDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4829-5907
Lin ZhaoSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK.
Justine AlegadoDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Joseph WebbDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
James WrightDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Ian A ApperlySchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9485-563X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful communication requires speakers and listeners to refer to information in their common ground. Shared history is one of the bases for common ground, as information from a communicative episode in the past can be referred to in future communication. However, to draw upon shared history, communicative partners need to have an accurate memory record that they can refer to. The memory mechanism for shared history is poorly understood. The current study investigated the ways in which memory for shared history is prioritised. Two experiments presented a referential communication task followed by a surprise recognition memory task, with the former task serving as an episode of shared history. Experiment 1 revealed superior memory for information that was both seen in the communicators' common ground and referred to, followed by information that was seen but not referred to, and finally by information privileged to the participants. Experiment 2 provided a replication of Experiment 1 and further demonstrated that these co-presence effects are not dependent on the presence of a speaker with a different perspective to the participant.

Indexed as

Recognition, PsychologyAdolescentAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansLinguisticsMaleVisual PerceptionYoung Adultcommon grounddomain specificitymemoryreferential communicationshared historyTheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID38752526
PMCPMC11529134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.