ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Effect of levels-of-processing on rates of forgetting.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrophysiological Correlates of Encoding Indicate Altered Processing but Comparable Subsequent Memory Effects Across Virtual Reality and Desktop-Based Conditions.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Default mode network connectivity predicts individual differences in long-term forgetting: Evidence for storage degradation, not retrieval failure.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Effects of left ventrolateral prefrontal stimulation on forming and maintaining deep and shallow episodic traces.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
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 levels-of-processing (LOP) framework, proposing that deep processing yields superior retention, has provided an important paradigm for memory research and a practical means of improving learning. However, the available levels-of-processing literature focuses on immediate memory performance. It is assumed within the LOP framework that deep processing will lead to slower forgetting than will shallow processing. However, it is unclear whether, or how, the initial level of processing affects the forgetting slopes over longer retention intervals. The present three experiments were designed to explore whether items encoded at qualitatively different LOP are forgotten at different rates. In the first two experiments, depth of processing was manipulated within-participants at encoding under deep and shallow conditions (semantic vs. rhyme judgement in Experiment 1; semantic vs. consonant-vowel pattern decision in Experiment 2). Recognition accuracy (d prime) was measured between-participants immediately after learning and at 30-min, 2-h, and 24-h delays. The third experiment employed a between-participants design, contrasting the rates of forgetting following semantic and phonological (rhyme) processing at immediate, 30-min, 2-h, and 6-h delays. Results from the three experiments consistently demonstrated a large effect size of levels of processing on immediate performance and a medium-to-large level effect size on delayed recognition, but crucially no LOP × delay group interaction. Analysis of the retention curves revealed no significant differences between the slopes of forgetting for deep and shallow processing. These results suggest that the rates of forgetting are independent of the qualitatively distinct encoding operations manipulated by levels of processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.