ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Bridging the "retrieval gap": Familiar schema-governed categories support reminding of disparate events.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the role of surface and structural similarities in the retrieval of everyday life events by means of a novel experimental paradigm in which participants could report any memories that came to mind while reading anecdotes instantiating familiar Schema-Governed Categories (SCGs, e.g., making up an excuse). Based on the idea that the availability of memories sharing both surface and structural similarities may conceal participants' ability to retrieve purely structural matches, we presented participants with short narratives describing associations of surfaces and structures which are either usually encountered (e.g., making up an excuse not to hang out with someone, Experiment 1) or less frequent in everyday life (e.g., making up an excuse not to go to an art exhibition, Experiment 2). The results from Experiment 1 replicated the traditional finding that when they are available, memories combining surface and structural similarities prevail over purely structural matches. However, Experiment 2 revealed that when a more direct competition was set between purely surface and purely structural matches, structurally based retrievals were the most frequent. Experiment 3 showed that target cues deprived of any surface features (e.g., making up an excuse) elicited more retrievals of usual than unusual surface/structure combos, suggesting the influence of association frequency in analogical retrieval. The data provide the first line of evidence suggesting that participants rely on highly familiar SGCs to process structural encodings and retrieve past experiences based on structural similarities. We discuss the implications of these findings regarding current theories of analogical retrieval holding that this process is predominantly guided by surface similarities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41832323What 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.