Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38992247›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2025

Surface matches prevail over distant analogs during retrieval.

Ricardo A Minervino, Máximo Trench

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 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.

Ricardo A MinervinoDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Yrigoyen, 2000 (8324), Cipolletti, Rio Negro, Argentina. minervinora@gmail.com.
Máximo TrenchDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Yrigoyen, 2000 (8324), Cipolletti, Rio Negro, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory studies using a reception paradigm have found that memory items sharing similar entities and relations with a working memory cue (surface matches) are easier to retrieve than items sharing only a system of abstract relations (structural matches). However, the naturalistic approach has contended that the observed supremacy of superficial similarity could have originated in a shallow processing of somewhat inconsequential stories, as well as in the inadvertent inclusion of structural similarity during the construction of surface matches. We addressed the question of which kind of similarity dominates retrieval through a hybrid paradigm that combines the ecological validity of the naturalistic production paradigm with the experimental control of the reception paradigm. In Experiment 1 we presented participants with a target story that maintained either superficial or structural similarities with two popular movies that had received a careful processing prior to the experimental session. Experiment 2 replicated the same procedure with highly viralized public events. In line with traditional laboratory results, surface matches were significantly better retrieved than structural matches, confirming the supremacy of superficial similarities during retrieval.

Indexed as

CuesMemory, Short-TermMental RecallAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAnalogyRetrievalStructural similaritySuperficial similarity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.