97 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. ANOVA of Schema Discrepancy by Emotional State Induction on the average occurrence of spatial memory bias,Study 2

      Do you think this interaction is significant?

    2. Indeedpositive emotional stimuli presented at the topand negative emotional stimuli presented at thebottom of a monitor (stimulus congruent loca-tions) were expected to be more accuratelyretrieved than positive stimuli presented at thebottom and negative stimuli presented at the topof a monitor (stimulus incongruent locations)

      Does this make sense?

    3. reconstructions in confor-mity with the valence (positive vs negative) of thestimuli

      How did they operationalize 'reconstruction'?

    4. An emotional state of alarm was induced inparticipants


    5. ANOVA of Word Valence by Emotional State Induction on average number of accurately recognised words, Study 1.

      Do you think the interaction is significant?

    6. A22 mixed-design ANOVA was run on theaverage number of correctly recognised words,with Emotional State Induction (Alarm Statecondition vs Control condition) as the between-participants factor, and Word Valence (Negativevs Neutral Words) as the within-participants fac-tor. A significant main effect of Word Valence wasfound to be significant,F(1, 82)29.73,MSE116.67,pB.001: Compared with Neutral Words,Negative Words were more accurately recognised.Moreover, the Emotional State Induction maineffect was significant,F(1, 82)4.51,MSE42.00,pB.01: Participants in the Alarm Statecondition recognised both Negative and NeutralWords better than participants in the Controlcondition (see Figure 2). The interaction effect

      Can someone explain the main effects?

    7. he experimental approach is the major strengthof the present work.

      How so?

    8. reconstructive factors

      What does 'reconstructive factors' mean?

    9. Now Print!

      Someone please explain the 'now print' mechanism.

    10. direct pathway

      What is the difference between the direct and indirect pathways?

    11. a considerable amount of FBMresearch has used three parameters as proxiesfor FBM accuracy: quantity of details, consis-tency, and confidence

      How are these parameters problematic for shocking public events?

    12. have criticised thespecial encoding hypothesis, suggesting thatFBMs are subject to the forgetting curve, and toreconstructive and inferential processes, compar-able to those observed for ordinary autobiogra-phical memories

      What does this mean in plain language?

  2. Jan 2021
    1. Across both experiments, strong cues led to an initial advantage in recall, but items recalled from weak cues were actually retained better over time, such that the advantage for strong cues was eliminated or reversed at the time of the final test

      Is this what they predicted?

    2. items learned through study were retained at approximately equal rates on the final test whether they were learned in the context of strong or weak cues

      Is this what they predicted?

    3. Both experiments revealed a robust testing effect.

      What results are evidence of this claim?

    4. Mean Relatedness Ratings

      What is the purpose of reporting mean relatedness ratings?

    5. Design and Procedure

      Briefly summarize the methods.

    6. If elaborative activation is not as likely to occur during restudy, final test recall of items presented for restudy would not be expected to vary in either experiment as a function of cue–target relatedness.

      What result is this specifically predicting?

    7. Initial retrieval was expected to be higher for targets recalled from strong cues than from weak cues. However, because initial retrieval is less direct with weak cues, recalling a target from a weak cue is more likely to involve the activation of more elaborative information (e.g., Basket → Eggs → Flour → Bread) than is recalling a target from a strong cue (e.g., Toast → Bread).

      Explain this prediction.

    8. Furthermore, the degree of elaboration during retrieval would seem to be greater under conditions in which the target is less accessible.

      How did the authors (eventually) operationally define "less accessible"?

    9. the act of retrieval r

      Describe the elaborative processing that is recruited during retrieval. Why is it not recruited during restudy?

    10. Testing could therefore have a mediating benefit on retention by influencing how well learners process the material during their next opportunity to study it

      What does this mean?

    11. Instead, it was best for items that were given a free-recall initial test, regardless of the type of final test.

      What is 'free recall'? What do you think it means that the performance was best for items that were initially remembered using 'free recall'?

    12. has been observed for a wide variety of materials, including word lists (e.g., Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006), general knowledge facts (e.g., Carpenter, Pashler, Wixted, & Vul, 2008), foreign language vocabulary (e.g., Carrier & Pashler, 1992), and text passages (Agarwal, Karpicke, Kang, Roediger, & McDermott, 2008). The effect has also been demonstrated with face–name pairings (e.g., Carpenter & DeLosh, 2005; Landauer & Bjork, 1978)

      What memory system are all of these results referring to?

    13. One explanation that has been offered is based on the notion of transfer-appropriate processing

      What is the transfer appropriate processing explanation?

    1. Thus, when the two modalities disagree and confidence is low, the Ouija response tends to be correct, and the volitional report incorrect.

      What is this statement getting at? What are the two modalities? How do they disagree? What does 'low confidence' mean?

    2. guessed answers

      Describe the results for the guessed answers condition.

      Do you think people were actually guessing?

    3. known answers

      Describe the results for the known answers condition.

      Do you believe that participants actually knew the answers?

    4. The experiment consisted of three phases.

      What were the three phases?

    5. In this study we examine the control of internally-induced ideomotor actions via implicit long-term semantic memory.

      Can someone unpack this sentence and explain it in their own words?

    6. implicit cognition

      What is implicit cognition?

    7. Ideomotor actions

      Can someone describe an example of an ideomotor action that was not explained in the article? Perhaps someone who watches sports...?

    8. Ouija game

      What is a Ouija board and how is it supposed to work?

  3. Nov 2020
    1. It may be hypothesizedthat beta-adrenergic blockade during reconsolidation may selectivelydisrupt the protein synthesis of the amygdalar fear memory, resultingin deconsolidation of the fear memory trace while leaving thedeclarative memory in the hippocampus untouched

      What is a real-world application?

    2. our finding that a well-established retrieval technique for fear memories (reinstatement)failed to uncover any fear response suggests that the fear memorymay either be erased (storage theory) or may be unavailable as aresult of retrieval failure (retrieval theory)5

      What is this referring to?

    3. Placebo reactivation

      So then what is going on over here?

    4. Unconditionedstimuli

      Why did they present the US again?

    5. Placebo reactivation

      Who can take a shot at explaining this graph?

    6. In addition, declarative knowledge of the con-tingency between the conditioned stimulus and the unconditionedstimulus was measured

      How did they measure declarative knowledge?

    7. ifferential fear-conditioning procedure with fear-relevant stimuli.

      Can someone explain this procedure?

    8. Reconsolidation of fear memory can be influenced by neurobio-logical manipulations during or shortly after the reactivation period

      What does this actually mean?

    9. Once emotional memory is established, itappears to last forever.

      Can someone explain what this is referring to?


    1. know

      Know: semantic memory, familiarity

    2. remember

      Remember: episodic, recollective experience

    3. Watson et al., 2005).

      What is the difference between Watson et al (2005) and this study?

    4. Experiment 2

      What is the difference between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2?

    5. recognition d' (a) and remember d' (b)

      What are these two graphs referring to?

    6. Fig. 1

      What does a high recognition d' mean?

    7. WM capacity

      How did they measure WM capacity?

    8. recollective detail.

      What does this mean?

    9. could potentially eliminate, or at least reduce, the false-memory effect. One such condition, which is important for the present study, is explicitly forewarning participants about of the nature of the DRM illusion

      Why do the authors think that working memory differences will emerge only in the presence of forewarning?

    10. activation/monitoring theory

      What does this refer to?

    11. Deese/Roediger–McDermott

      Can someone please explain the DRM?

  4. Oct 2020
    1. the primary objective of the present study was to examinethe link between checking compulsions and habitual prospectivememory

      What is the primary objective of the study?

    2. The task requiredparticipants to remind the experimenter to send an email to hersupervisor

      FYI - this manipulation didn't work.

    3. Fig. 1.

      Which task is this?

    4. Episodic

      What was the episodic task?

    5. Habitual

      What was the habitual task?

    6. Method1.1

      Complicated! Let's make it simple. Who were the participant groups? What were the two tasks participants had to complete related to prospective memory?

    7. we also manipulated therelevance of the time- and event-cued prospective memory tasksin the present study

      Why did they manipulate relevance?

    8. checkers indeed reportexperiencing more problems with various aspects of prospectivememory

      Why might you question this result?

    9. Instead, our focus was on episodicand habitual prospective memory.

      What is the difference between habitual and episodic prospective memory?

    10. f individuals frequently experience prospective memoryfailures (e.g., they frequently forget to attend appointments, to paybills and/or to turn off the iron), they may begin to worry and haveintrusive doubts concerning prospective memory failures (e.g., didI turn off the iron?).

      What is the hypothesis?

    11. Until recently, the memory deficit theory was tested exclusivelyin the domain of retrospective memory

      Why is that weird?

    12. memory deficit theory

      What is the memory deficit theory?

    13. The most common subtype, characterized bychecking compulsions, occurs in over 50% of OCD patients(Henderson & Pollard, 1988; Rasmussen & Eisen, 2002; Steinet al., 1997), with an additional 15% of the general populationdemonstrating sub-clinical checking compulsions

      What is a OCD and what is a checking compulsion?

    1. Obviously it isimpossible to reproduce precisely those condi-tions that prevail for a phenomenon such as FBMwhen importing an event into the laboratory fromthe natural setting in which it is manifested.

      QUESTION: What do you think about the ethics of this study?

    2. although the naturalistic methodtakes advantage of capturing a naturally occur-ring phenomenon, it has the disadvantage oflacking sufficient control of both the assessmentof FBMs and the factors intervening in theirformation

      QUESTION: What does this mean?

    3. Average occurence of Spatial Memory

      Incorrectly recalled location

    4. Now Print!

      QUESTION: What is this hypothesis?

    5. As a general hypothesis, being in anemotional state of alarm was expected toinfluence directly and indirectly*through recon-structive processes*the individual’s memoryaccuracy

      QUESTION: What is the general hypothesis?

    6. Figure 1.

      QUESTION: What are these results and what do they indicate? Anything surprising?

    7. read immediately after the emo-tional event (negative vs neutral words).

      QUESTION: What was the point of reading the words?

    8. the experimental approach is the major strengthof the present work.

      QUESTION: Main strength?

    9. Indeed, research work on FBMs has beenprimarily conducted using a naturalistic question-naire method.

      QUESTION: What does this mean?

    10. From the aforementioned it follows that twopossible pathways might be hypothesised toaccount for the formation of FBMs

      QUESTION: What are the two pathways?

    11. For many years, researchers have being debat-ing whether FBMs can be considered either aspecial class of episodic emotional memories(Bohannon, 1988; Conway et al., 1994; Pillemer,1984), or are affected by reconstructive factors, asordinary autobiographical formations.

      QUESTION: What is the debate about FBMs?

    12. Traditional FBM literature suggests that FBMevents are public in nature

      QUESTION: Why does this matter?


  5. Sep 2020
    1. Typically, a restudy condition involves presenting the materialagain for participants to read, without any overt response required.In such a condition, it can be difficult to know the degree to whichparticipants are processing the material or even paying attention toit at all. The current study helps rule out this potential problem byincluding a restudy condition that required participants to judge therelatedness between two words in a pair. The consistency of theratings across the encoding and restudy trials indicates that partic-ipants were processing the items well enough to make relevant andaccurate judgments that were in line with what would be expected.

      Q: So why did they ask participants to rate the relatedness during study and re-study?

    2. Both experiments revealed an interaction whereby strong cueswere advantageous for initial recall, but items recalled from weakcues were retained better over time.

      Q: What is an interaction and how is it demonstrated here?

    3. According to the elaborative retrieval hypothesis, the activationof such information is less likely to occur during restudy and sofinal test recall of restudied items would not be expected to benefitas a function of manipulations that encourage elaborative process-ing during retrieval

      Q: Why is elaboration more likely during test than re-study?

    4. elaborative information

      Q: Why/How are weak cues elaborated more than strong cues?

    5. 4.26 (0.53

      Q: Does this make sense to anyone? Did they collect relatedness ratings during test? What am I missing?

    6. Two experiments

      Q: What was the difference between the two experiments?

    7. If this information is beneficial for retention,items recalled from weak cues should be retained better over time,such that the initial advantage for strong cues is eliminated orreversed at the time of the final test.

      Q: Can someone explain this?

    8. Testing could therefore have a mediating benefit onretention by influencing how well learners process the materialduring their next opportunity to study it

      Q: Paraphrase this in your own words. Why is this not a very likely explanation for the testing effect?

    9. Carpenter andDeLosh (2006

      Q: How do the results of this study demonstrate that TAP does not explain the testing effect?

    10. transfer-appropriate processing

      Q: What is Transfer Appropriate Processing and how might it apply to the Testing Effect?

    1. known answers

      Known answers = high correlation between modalities

    2. This study investigated whether ideomotor actions can express the contents of implicit semantic memory. We comparedresponses to yes/no questions using both volitional reports and Ouija responses. When participants believed they knew theanswer, responses for both modalities were similar. When participants believed they did not know the answer, accuracy fellto chance for volitional reports (50%) but remained significantly higher for Ouija responses (65%). These results indicate thatinformation inaccessible through volitional report can nevertheless be expressed in an ideomotor action in the complete ab-sence of conscious awareness.

      The abstract and this paragraph are all you really need to efficiently read an article :D

    3. we calculated for every participanta similarity indexSdescribing the correlation of responses

      S = 2P - 1 where P is the proportion of answers the same between both conditions

         -1 (opposite)    0 (no similarity)    + (same)

      If P is high:

      • S = 2(.9) - 1
      • S = 0.8

      If P is low:

      • S = 2(.2) - 1
      • S = -0.6
    4. guessed answers

      Guessed answers = low correlation between modalities, AND Ouija did better

    5. Results3.1

      Can someone summarize the gist of the results?

    6. To examine this possibility

      What memory system is this study addressing?

    7. Material and methods

      Can someone summarize the methods for me? What did participants do and what were the conditions?

    8. In this study we examine

      What question were the researchers trying to answer with this study?

    9. Ideomotor actions

      Can someone explain ideomotor actions? Did anyone thing of an example not mentioned in the article?