ArticleMemory & cognition2025
How varying cue duration influences item-method directed forgetting: A novel selective retrieval interpretation.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Forgetting Strategies on Memory Performance: Behavioral and Electroencephalography Evidence.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Less Than Zero?Experimental psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A series of four experiments tested the assumptions of the most prominent and longstanding account of item-method directed forgetting: the selective rehearsal account. In the item-method directed forgetting paradigm, each presented item is followed by its own instructional cue during the study phase - either to-be-forgotten (F) or to-be-remembered (R). On a subsequent test, memory is poorer for F items than for R items. To clarify the mechanism underlying memory performance, we manipulated the time available for rehearsal, examining instructional cue durations of 1 s, 5 s, and 10 s. Experiments 1a and 1b, where the order of cue durations was randomized, showed no effect of cue duration on item recognition of unrelated single words, for either R or F items. Experiment 2, using unrelated word pairs, again showed no effect of randomized cue duration, this time on associative recognition. Experiments 3 and 4 blocked cue duration and showed equivalent increases in recognition of both R and F single words and word pairs with increasing cue duration. We suggest that any post-cue rehearsal is carried out only when cue duration is predictable, and that such limited rehearsal is equally likely for F items and R items. The consistently better memory for R items than for F items across cue duration depends on selective retrieval involving (1) a rapid retrieval check engaged for R items only and (2) a rapid removal process implemented for F items only.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39192139What 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.