Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42611090›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2026

Processing abstract concepts through interaction: effects on social recognition.

Mihai Alexandru Bîclea, Ana Cosmoiu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 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.

Mihai Alexandru BîcleaFaculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Ana CosmoiuDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania. ana-maria.cosmoiu@fpse.unibuc.ro.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building on the importance of sociality in grounding abstract concepts, this study investigated how concept type shapes recognition memory for social stimuli. Participants engaged in text-based dialogues about abstract or concrete concepts with virtual agents, after which recognition of names and faces, as well as perceived closeness, was measured. The procedure included a preliminary, context-based validation of linguistic dimensions adapted from Italian into Romanian, given the absence of prior norming studies. Discussions of abstract concepts elicited more uncertainty expressions, questions, turn-taking, general statements, affective content, and overt beliefs, thus offering converging evidence for the adequacy of the translated stimuli and previously reported differences in socio-cognitive engagement. Differential recognition effects facilitated by abstract concept conversations were observed for faces, but not for names. The higher salience of faces could not be ascribed straightforwardly to cognitive load or faster processing, as this interpretation was incompatible with the reaction times observed, which did not differ across conditions in either the encoding or the recognition phase. This, coupled with the absence of corresponding effects for names, which are typically recognized at least as well as faces in matched recognition paradigms, is consistent with a greater involvement of social cognitive processes during abstract concept processing. Overall, the results indicate that abstract concept processing modulates recognition memory for social stimuli. The experimental design is intended to be simple and reproducible, enabling cumulative future research on the relationship between concept types and other cognitive processes.

Indexed as

Abstract conceptsRecognition memorySocial stimuli

Identifiers

PMID42611090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.