Figure 1
Schema of the study design following its co-creation.
Figure 2
Order of the tasks.
PRE1 & POST1: each of the three successive segments started with an encoding phase, followed by an induction phase where an ESI technique (ESI condition) or a control task (No-ESI condition) was administered in a counterbalanced order (except for Segment 2, where only the control task was administered). Each segment concluded with a retrieval phase, where the free recall and recognition tasks were administered in a counterbalanced order (except for Segment 2, where only the associative recognition task was administered).
PRE2 & POST2: each of the two successive segments started with an induction phase, where an ESI technique (ESI condition) or a control task (No-ESI condition) was administered in a counterbalanced order, followed by the problem-solving task (MEPS) and the divergent creative thinking task (AUT), administered in a counterbalanced order.
Note: MEPS = Means-End Problem Solving task, AUT = Alternate Uses Task, ESI = Episodic Specificity Induction.
Figure 3
Examples of one trial in each task. 3a: A video title was presented visually and auditorily, immediately followed by the corresponding video (This sequence was replicated twice for each video.). 3b: Participants were prompted with a video title and required to verbally describe their memory of the corresponding video in as much detail as possible. 3c: Following the display of a video title, a statement about a spatial, visual or actional aspect of the corresponding video was visually and auditorily presented. Participants were then tasked with determining the statement’s veracity using a mouse-based response. 3d: An audio description accompanied a video depicting a character performing an action on an object. Subsequently, the next three videos showcased characters from the same block, doing the same action on a different object, and originating either from the high or low distinctiveness condition. 3e: An audio description of a specific action on a given object was presented, immediately followed by an image of a character that may or may not match the one who executed the action. Participants were instructed to assess whether the character matched or not, using the mouse. 3f: Participants were asked to verbally describe the steps that led a protagonist – or themselves – from the beginning of a social problem to its resolution. 3g: In response to an object cue, participants were asked to verbally describe as many creative and alternative uses as possible. 3h: After watching a video and completing math exercises, participants were either interviewed about their memory of the video using Episodic Specificity Induction (ESI condition) or asked to share their general thoughts about the video (No-ESI condition).
Note: MEPS = Means-End Problem Solving task, AUT = Alternate Uses Task, ESI = Episodic Specificity Induction.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
| TASKS | INDEPENDANT VARIABLES | DEPENDANT VARIABLES | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FREE RECALL | INDUCTION | TIME | CORRECT SPECIFIC DETAILS | ||
| M | SD | ||||
| No-ESI | PRE | 13.32 | 2.89 | ||
| POST | 22.88 | 3.18 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 16.37 | 2.81 | ||
| POST | 22.87 | 3.67 | |||
| RECOGNITION | STATEMENT | INDUCTION | TIME | d’ | |
| M | SD | ||||
| Action | No-ESI | PRE | 0.79 | 0.72 | |
| POST | 0.80 | 0.61 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 0.64 | 0.64 | ||
| POST | 0.84 | 0.88 | |||
| Spatial | No-ESI | PRE | 0.52 | 0.41 | |
| POST | 1.27 | 0.60 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 0.89 | 0.71 | ||
| POST | 1.12 | 0.44 | |||
| Visual | No-ESI | PRE | 0.53 | 0.78 | |
| POST | 0.60 | 0.68 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 0.64 | 0.93 | ||
| POST | 1.03 | 0.62 | |||
| ASSOCIATIVE RECOGNITION | DISTINCTIVENESS | TIME | d’ | ||
| M | SD | ||||
| HIGH | PRE | 0.52 | 0.80 | ||
| POST | 0.33 | 1.03 | |||
| LOW | PRE | 0.22 | 0.98 | ||
| POST | 0.12 | 0.55 | |||
| PROBLEM SOLVING (MEPS) | INDUCTION | TIME | RELEVANT STEPS | ||
| M | SD | ||||
| No-ESI | PRE | 4.86 | 3.12 | ||
| POST | 9.89 | 4.63 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 9.09 | 3.71 | ||
| POST | 11.09 | 4.20 | |||
| DIVERGENT CREATIVE THINKING (AUT) | INDUCTION | TIME | CREATIVITY SCORE | ||
| M | SD | ||||
| No-ESI | PRE | 1.69 | 0.19 | ||
| POST | 2.16 | 0.18 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 1.87 | 0.18 | ||
| POST | 2.29 | 0.19 | |||
| INDUCTION | TIME | CATEGORIES OF APPROPRIATE USES | |||
| M | SD | ||||
| No-ESI | PRE | 18.43 | 4.18 | ||
| POST | 19.50 | 4.24 | |||
| ESI | PRE | 17.86 | 5.43 | ||
| POST | 17.93 | 4.67 | |||
[i] MEPS: Means-End Problem Solving Task; AUT: Alternate Uses Task (divergent creative thinking task).
Figure 4
Mean number of correctly recalled specific details for free recall in the ESI and no-ESI conditions during the PRE- and POST-intervention assessments.
Note: Bars represent standard errors. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Figure 5
Mean number of relevant steps for the MEPS task in the ESI and no-ESI conditions at PRE- and POST-intervention.
Note: Bars represent standard errors. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Appendix A
Model structures.
| EFFECT | TASK | MODEL STRUCTURES |
|---|---|---|
| Induction | Free recall | specific_details ~ induction + (1 | participant_ID) |
| Recognition | dprime ~ induction + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| MEPS | relevant_steps ~ induction + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| AUT | creativity_score ~ induction + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| categories_of_appropriate_uses ~ induction + (1 | participant_ID) | ||
| Intervention | Free recall | specific_details ~ induction*time + (1 | participant_ID) |
| Recognition | dprime ~ induction+time + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| Associative recognition | dprime ~ distinctiveness+time + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| MEPS | relevant_steps ~ induction*time + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| AUT | creativity_score ~ induction+time + (1 | participant_ID) | |
| categories_of_appropriate_uses ~ induction*time + (1 | participant_ID) |
[i] MEPS: Means-End Problem Solving Task; AUT: Alternate Uses Task (divergent creative thinking.