Skip to main content
. 2014 May 5;24(9):988–992. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.012

Table 1.

Memory Performance across Experiments 1 and 2

Cue Type Retrieved Type
Location Person Object Animal
Experiment 1

Sim. Closed Location NA 0.80 (0.20) 0.72 (0.22) NA
Person 0.79 (0.23) NA 0.76 (0.22) NA
Object 0.74 (0.23) 0.76 (0.20) NA NA
Sep. Closed
Location NA 0.77 (0.18) 0.78 (0.20) NA
Person 0.77 (0.19) NA 0.76 (0.26) NA
Object 0.77 (0.22) 0.79 (0.18) NA NA

Experiment 2

Sep. Closed Location NA 0.64 (0.19) 0.68 (0.22) 0.80 (0.15)
Person 0.60 (0.21) NA 0.69 (0.19) 0.61 (0.14)
Object 0.71 (0.18) 0.67 (0.22) NA NA
Animal 0.70 (0.17) 0.64 (0.19) NA NA
Sep. Open Location NA 0.51 (0.22) 0.76 (0.20) NA
Person 0.51 (0.24) NA NA 0.58 (0.15)
Object 0.75 (0.19) NA NA NA
Animal NA 0.64 (0.18) NA NA

Proportion correct cued recognition (and SD) for each retrieved type (i.e., the element the participants were tested on; columns) and each cue type (i.e., the element the participants were cued with; rows) across the Simultaneous Closed-Loop (Sim. Closed) and Separated Closed-Loop (Sep. Closed) conditions of experiment 1 and Separated Closed-Loop and Separated Open-Loop (Sep. Open) conditions of experiment 2.