↓ Skip to main content

Episodic and Semantic Memory Contribute to Familiar and Novel Episodic Future Thinking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Episodic and Semantic Memory Contribute to Familiar and Novel Episodic Future Thinking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01746
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tong Wang, Tong Yue, Xi Ting Huang

Abstract

Increasing evidence indicates that episodic future thinking (EFT) relies on both episodic and semantic memory; however, event familiarity may importantly affect the extent to which episodic and semantic memory contribute to EFT. To test this possibility, two behavioral experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, we directly compared the proportion of episodic and semantic memory used in an EFT task. The results indicated that more episodic memory was used when imagining familiar future events compared with novel future events. Conversely, significantly more semantic memory was used when imagining novel events compared with familiar events. Experiment 2 aimed to verify the results of Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we found that familiarity moderated the effect of priming the episodic memory system on EFT; particularly, it increased the time required to construct a standard familiar episodic future event, but did not significantly affect novel episodic event reaction time. Collectively, these findings support the hypothesis that event familiarity importantly moderates episodic and semantic memory's contribution to EFT.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 61%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Unspecified 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,349,664
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,258
of 30,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,500
of 312,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#377
of 437 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 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 30,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 312,761 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 437 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.