Episodic Memory
Interesting Details Task
Also called: seductive-details effect, irrelevant details in learning
Measure how interesting extra passages affect learning. Compare retention and transfer after short lessons with and without irrelevant details.
6-9 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 69
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
Water in a wick
Water sticks to the threads and pulls more water along behind it.
Imagine a miniature garden inside an old boot, with a toy tiger behind a leaf.
What it measures
Measures how extra, interesting passages affect learning. Read six short lessons, then answer retention and transfer questions.
Constructs
- Learning from text
- Retention
- Transfer
- Seductive-details effect
Research uses
- Learning research
- Educational psychology
- Memory research
How the paradigm works
Interesting but irrelevant information can change what people learn from a lesson. Participants read six original short lessons on everyday physical mechanisms. Three include an imagined anecdote related to the topic but irrelevant to its explanation, and three contain only the core text. The seed assigns lessons to conditions and shuffles their order. The core wording is identical across conditions. After all lessons, participants answer one factual retention question and one transfer question per lesson, choosing from three answers. A separate practice text gives feedback. Reading and answers are self-paced.
Scores
- Details Costpoints
- Percentage correct without extra passages minus with them, in percentage points. Positive values mean lower accuracy after extra passages.
- Compare conditions
- Retention Costpoints
- Plain minus extra-passage accuracy on factual retention questions, in percentage points.
- Informational
- Transfer Costpoints
- Plain minus extra-passage accuracy on questions applying the lesson to a new case, in percentage points.
- Informational
- Plain Lessons Correct%
- Percentage correct for lessons without extra passages.
- Higher means more correct
- Extra-Passage Lessons Correct%
- Percentage correct for lessons with extra passages.
- Higher means more correct
- Questions Correct%
- Percentage of all recorded questions answered correctly.
- Higher means more correct
- Retention Correct%
- Accuracy on factual retention questions.
- Informational
- Transfer Correct%
- Accuracy on new applications of the lessons.
- Informational
- Questions Recordedcount
- Unique questions from the most complete run.
- 12 standard
- Answers Under 100 mscount
- Answers given within 100 ms of question onset.
- 0 expected
- Median Answer Timems
- Median answer time, excluding times under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Plain Questionscount
- Questions from plain lessons.
- 6 standard
- Extra-Passage Questionscount
- Questions from lessons with added passages.
- 6 standard
Use and evidence
69 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 308 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 12 |
| 2024 | 14 |
| 2023 | 8 |
| 2022 | 10 |
| 2021 | 25 |
| 2020 | 15 |
| 2019 | 14 |
| 2018 | 21 |
| 2017 | 10 |
| 2016 | 12 |
| 2015 | 5 |
| 2014 | 11 |
| 2013 | 5 |
| 2012 | 5 |
| 2011 | 4 |
| 2010 | 8 |
| 2009 | 6 |
| 2008 | 8 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 8 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 4 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 2 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 4
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 10 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Lessons
- 6 original lessons in all 8 languages. Each has the same core text with or without an added imagined anecdote.
- Conditions
- 3 plain and 3 with extra passages by default. All-plain and all-details settings support study-group comparisons.
- Questions
- 12 questions: 1 retention and 1 transfer question per lesson, each with 3 answers. Questions follow all reading.
- Practice
- 1 separate text and a question with feedback.
- Order and timing
- Seeded text, condition and answer order. Self-paced reading and untimed choices; no return to earlier text.
- Scores
- Plain minus extra-passage accuracy in percentage points, overall and by question type. Condition accuracy and answer time are also saved.
The lessons and anecdotes are our own. Extra passages add reading length as well as irrelevant content. The default compares different topics within a person, with topics assigned to conditions by seed. Single-condition sessions have no within-person cost. Scores support research and do not diagnose. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: unique text questions from the most complete run. Three choices give one-third chance. Fewer than half the questions invalidate. With at least four answers, half or more under 200 ms invalidate. Missing answers are flagged, and too many invalidate. Incomplete runs, repeated positions and a hidden tab are flagged.
Why these rules
Every question has one answer supported by its text. Seeded answer positions separate content from button preference. Reading and answers are self-paced; response time is descriptive. The completion threshold is a ConductScience rule.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Extra passages | Half the lessons (standard) | Half the lessons (standard), No lessons, All lessons |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Interesting Details Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Harp SF, Mayer RE, 1998; Bender L, Renkl A, Eitel A, 2021), with the standard settings (extra passages: Half the lessons). The main score was details cost (percentage correct without extra passages minus with them, in percentage points).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414Retention and transfer after lessons with or without interesting, irrelevant details. Original items only.
- Bender, L., Renkl, A., & Eitel, A. (2021). Seductive details do their damage also in longer learning sessions – When the details are perceived as relevant. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1248–1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12560Self-paced learning and separate retention and transfer outcomes. No source materials reused.
Source papers
- Harp and Mayer (1998); Bender, Renkl and Eitel (2021): seductive-details comparisons.Paradigm source, Adults who read the session language
Questions
How long does the Interesting Details Task take?
About 6 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Details Cost, Retention Cost, Transfer Cost, Plain Lessons Correct, Extra-Passage Lessons Correct, Questions Correct, Retention Correct, Transfer Correct, Questions Recorded, Answers Under 100 ms, Median Answer Time, Plain Questions and Extra-Passage Questions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Interesting Details Task used in research?
69 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 308 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 10 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Interesting Details Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Extra passages (Half the lessons (standard), No lessons, All lessons). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.