Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41649935›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior

Adaptive Memory: Story Processing Improves Recall Performance.

Matthew B Reysen, Zoe H Fischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior. 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.

Matthew B ReysenUniversity of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-7226-0796
Zoe H FischerUniversity of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across four experiments, participants were asked to process unrelated common nouns after listening to pleasantness processing instructions, survival processing instructions, or story processing instructions. In Experiment 1, participants were provided with a list of words and were asked to list various ways that the words were pleasant or unpleasant, list ways that the words could help them survive in an ancestral grasslands scenario, or use the words in the list to create a short story. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to perform similar tasks, but rather than being provided with a word list at the start of the experiment, words were presented one at a time at a fixed rate. In Experiment 3, participants were asked to rate words as they were presented one at a time regarding their perceived pleasantness, their relevance to an ancestral survival scenario, or the ease with which they could be included in a short story. In Experiment 4, a combined survival-story condition was included along with survival, story, and pleasantness processing instructions to determine whether combining story and survival processing produces an additive effect on recall performance. Across all four experiments, after a brief delay, the story processing condition produced either enhanced or comparable incidental recall performance to the survival processing scenario, and both of those conditions produced enhanced recall performance relative to the pleasantness processing scenario. These results suggest that processing information in the context of a story, like survival processing, may represent one of the best deep processing tasks identified to date.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalMental RecallAdultFemaleHumansMaleSurvivalYoung Adultmnemonicsrecallshort-term memorysurvival processing

Identifiers

PMID41649935
PMCPMC12881306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.