ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Semantic similarity is not emotional: No effect of similarity defined by valence, arousal, and dominance on short-term ordered recall.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Semantic centrality and emotional valence contribute to word memorability in an associative memory task for Chinese words.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In short-term ordered recall tasks, phonological similarity impedes item and order recall, while semantic similarity benefits item recall with a weak or null effect on order recall. Ishiguro and Saito recently suggested that these contradictory findings were due to an inadequate assessment of semantic similarity. They proposed a novel measure of semantic similarity based on the distance between items in a three-dimensional space composed of the semantic dimensions of valence, arousal, and dominance. We conducted an experimental examination of their proposal. In four experiments, participants performed an immediate serial recall or an immediate order reconstruction task. Performance of dissimilar lists was contrasted with performance for semantically similar lists defined by valence, arousal, and dominance or by the typical latent semantic analysis. Two sets of words were used to assess the reproducibility of the findings and similar results were observed with both sets. As expected, when similarity was defined with latent semantic analysis, items were better recalled without noticeable impact on their order. However, contrary to Ishiguro and Saito's predictions, when similarity was defined with valence, arousal and dominance, no effect emerged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853515What 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.