Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,597

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluating storage, retention, and retrieval in disordered memory and learning

BUSCHKE, HERMAN, FULD, PAULA ALTMAN·1974·Neurology

Abstract

Two simple methods that are clinically useful for analyzing impaired memory and learning are selective reminding or restricted reminding. These new methods provide simultaneous analysis of storage, retention, and retrieval during verbal learning because they let the patient show learning by spontaneous retrieval without csnfounding by continual presentation. Because selective reminding and restricted reminding let the patient show consistent retrieval without any further presentation, they also distinguish list learning from item learning, so that impaired memory and learning can be analyzed further in terms of two stages of learning (item and list).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.24.11.1019

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
BUSCHKE, H., & FULD, P. A.
Venue
Neurology
Published
1974-11
Volume
24
Issue
11
Pages
1019-1019
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2062453566
Cited by
1,597
References
0
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.