↓ Skip to main content

Why are we not flooded by involuntary autobiographical memories? Few cues are more effective than many

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Why are we not flooded by involuntary autobiographical memories? Few cues are more effective than many
Published in
Psychological Research, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00426-014-0632-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manila Vannucci, Claudia Pelagatti, Maciej Hanczakowski, Giuliana Mazzoni, Claudia Rossi Paccani

Abstract

Recent research on involuntary autobiographical memories (IAMs) has shown that these memories can be elicited and studied in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Employing a modified version of a vigilance task developed by Schlagman and Kvavilashvili (Mem Cogn 36:920-932, 2008) to elicit IAMs, we investigated the effects of varying the frequency of external cues on the number of IAMs reported. During the vigilance task, participants had to detect an occasional target stimulus (vertical lines) in a constant stream of non-target stimuli (horizontal lines). Participants had to interrupt the task whenever they became aware of any task-unrelated mental contents and to report them. In addition to line patterns, participants were exposed to verbal cues and their frequency was experimentally manipulated in three conditions (frequent cues vs. infrequent cues vs. infrequent cues plus arithmetic operations). We found that, compared to infrequent cues, both conditions with frequent cues and infrequent cues plus arithmetic operations decreased the number of IAMs reported. The comparison between the three experimental conditions suggests that this reduction was due to the greater cognitive load in conditions of frequent cues and infrequent cue plus arithmetic operations. Possible mechanisms involved in this effect and their implications for research on IAMs are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Poland 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 57%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Computer Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2014.
All research outputs
#4,352,766
of 25,372,398 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#156
of 1,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,221
of 368,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,372,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.