Effects of memory cue and interest in remembering and forgetting of gist and details
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gist and details of an event are both important for us to establish and maintain episodic memory. On the other hand, episodic memory is influenced by both external and internal factors, such as memory cue and intrinsic motivation. To what extent these factors and their interaction modulate memory and forgetting of gist and detailed information remains unclear. In this study, 29 participants watched film clips accompanied by either gist or detailed cues and rated their interest in these clips. Their memories of gist and detailed information were tested after 10 min, 1 day, and 1 week. The results showed that memory cue modulated the forgetting of gist and detailed memories. Specifically, when gist cues were used, gist memory was forgotten more slowly than detailed memory. When detailed cues were used, detailed memory was forgotten more slowly than gist memory. Differently, the subjective interest in the clips enhanced memory accuracy irrespective of memory type but did not influence the forgetting of gist and detailed memories. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between memory cue and interest, showing that gist cues enhanced memory than detailed cues only for low-interest clips. These results suggest that external and internal factors have differential effects on memory and forgetting, and the effectiveness of external factors depends on the state of intrinsic motivation. The significant interplay of different factors in influencing the remembering or forgetting of gist and detailed memories provides potential ways to enhance memory and retention of gist and detailed information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".