ArticleCognitive processing2025
Recalling more each time: context change effects in hypermnesia.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Hypermnesia, the increase in recall over trials without relearning or re-exposure to the studied items, has intrigued researchers since Ballard first reported the effect in 1913. In the typical hypermnesia study, additional retrieval trials are unexpected, and when announced, may induce context changes that re-focuses attention and effort on retrieving unrecalled items. The present studies examined the effects of context change on retrieval by telling some participants prior to study (trials-known condition) that three trials will be given to recall line drawings (Experiment 1) or words (Experiment 2) whereas others were not so informed (hypermnesia condition). Results of Experiment 1 revealed hypermnesia but no between-group differences on the sub-processes of item gains, losses, or intrusions. In Experiment 2, hypermnesia and between-group differences were found for item gains and intrusions, results that were marginally significant when data were aggregated across both experiments. Results are discussed in terms of the change in cue set hypothesis (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1980) and the effects of internal and external context changes on hypermnesia. Suggestions for future studies are also presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39514143What 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.