Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41201105›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2026

The impact of thought probes and other encoding interruptions on memory.

Dillon H Murphy, Gene A Brewer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dillon H MurphyDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5604-3494
Gene A BrewerDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whenever we work towards completing a task, such as learning some information, we are susceptible to attentional lapses where our thoughts stray from the demands of the current task to something unrelated (i.e., mind-wandering). Although prior work indicates that the presence of mind-wandering probes (used to measure task-unrelated thoughts) in a cognitive task may not impact the measurement of abilities like processing speed, there could be reactive effects involving memory. We examined whether mind-wandering probes can impact memory by having participants study lists of words to remember for later tests; at pseudo-random intervals during encoding, participants either responded to mind-wandering probes, answered math problems, had unfilled interstimulus intervals, or studied the lists without any interruptions. Results revealed that mind-wandering probes (or other interruptions) do not significantly impact overall memory performance (though there may be some impact on items immediately preceding or following a probe) or the temporal dynamics of episodic memory. Thus, the present study suggests that using mind-wandering probes introduces minimal unexpected bias into research designs such that these interruptions do not adversely affect or benefit memory performance, consistent with prior research focused primarily on other cognitive domains.

Indexed as

AttentionMemoryThinkingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMemory, EpisodicReaction TimeYoung Adultcognitive loadmemoryMind-wanderingreactivitythought probes

Identifiers

PMID41201105
PMCPMC13062450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.