ArticleJournal of applied research in memory and cognition2024
General knowledge and detailed memory benefit from different training sequences.
Article in Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2024. 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.
- Sparsity and memory constraints interact with training sequence to bias learning of associative maps.Neuropsychologia · 2026Article
- Multistep inference across the human lifespan can be improved with individualized memory interventions.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world decisions require understanding generalities (e.g., sorting an album collection by genre) and the ability to remember specific events (where one acquired a particular album). Discriminating between broad categories versus individual events requires contrasting features at different levels of specificity, and therefore have different representational demands. Here, we used a within-participant design to test the hypothesis that different training protocols (blocked or interleaved order) would have dissociable impacts on representation of generalities and specifics. On each trial, participants viewed a painting from one of twelve artists along with information about its unique location. Category generalization and source memory were tested immediately and after one week. Interleaving enhanced generalization, while blocking improved incidental learning of episodic details. Furthermore, category knowledge remained stable over time, whereas episodic details declined. These results indicate that interleaving and blocking optimize discrimination at different levels of specificity, with differential impacts on inferring generalities and remembering specific events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.