| Title |
Is memory organized by temporal contiguity?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-015-0573-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douglas L. Hintzman |
| Abstract |
The hypotheses that memories are ordered according to time and that contiguity is central to learning have recently reemerged in the human memory literature. This article reviews some of the key empirical findings behind this revival and some of the evidence against it, and finds the evidence for temporal organization unconvincing. A central problem is that, as many memory experiments are done, they have a prospective, as well as a retrospective, component. That is, if subjects can anticipate how they will be tested, they encode the to-be-remembered material in a way that they believe will facilitate performance on the anticipated test. Experiments that avoid this confounding factor have shown little or no evidence of organization by contiguity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 26% |
| Researcher | 17 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 36 | 49% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,297,343
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1,488
of 1,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,633
of 386,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#22
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 386,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.