ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Slowdown vs. breakdown of memory recall by retrieval stopping.
Article in Memory & cognition, 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
Think/No-Think studies have shown that people can prevent memories from coming up to their mind by explicitly attempting to not think of them. However, there is an important limitation in the measures typically used: binary recall vs. no-recall accuracy under a specific time deadline. In this study, we instead focused on recall latency with a longer response window to accommodate a wider range of recall latencies. We found in Experiment 1 that direct suppression in the standard No-Think condition had a relatively uniform, graded effect, slowing the recall process in such a way that more recall failures occur with a short deadline, but a longer deadline (10 s) allows for successful recall at rates comparable to a baseline condition. In Experiment 2, thought substitution also caused the slowdown of the recall despite still lower recall rate than a baseline in 10 s. These results suggest that memory recall is subject to graded impairment across all items in a consistent manner instead of the breakdown of recall among a subset of memories. For understanding forgetting by retrieval stopping, excessive use of recall rate should be avoided, and recall latency is a potential alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40021591What 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.