↓ Skip to main content

Effects of cues to event segmentation on subsequent memory

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Effects of cues to event segmentation on subsequent memory
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0043-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Gold, Jeffrey M. Zacks, Shaney Flores

Abstract

To remember everyday activity it is important to encode it effectively, and one important component of everyday activity is that it consists of events. People who segment activity into events more adaptively have better subsequent memory for that activity, and event boundaries are remembered better than event middles. The current study asked whether intervening to improve segmentation by cuing effective event boundaries would enhance subsequent memory for events. We selected a set of movies that had previously been segmented by a large sample of observers and edited them to provide visual and auditory cues to encourage segmentation. For each movie, cues were placed either at event boundaries or event middles, or the movie was left unedited. To further support the encoding of our everyday event movies, we also included post-viewing summaries of the movies. We hypothesized that cuing at event boundaries would improve memory, and that this might reduce age differences in memory. For both younger and older adults, we found that cuing event boundaries improved memory-particularly for the boundaries that were cued. Cuing event middles also improved memory, though to a lesser degree; this suggests that imposing a segmental structure on activity may facilitate memory encoding, even when segmentation is not optimal. These results provide evidence that structural cuing can improve memory for everyday events in younger and older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 24%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 51%
Neuroscience 11 14%
Linguistics 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,914,220
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#250
of 319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,713
of 420,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 420,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.