Episodic Memory
Living Things Memory Task
Also called: animacy effect task, animate and inanimate word recall
Compare recall of animal and object words after study and a short counting task.
9-10 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
- 49
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Compares recall of words naming animals and nonliving objects. Participants study a mixed list, count backward, then type the words they remember.
Constructs
- Verbal episodic memory
- Animacy and recall
Research uses
- Memory research
- Word learning studies
How the paradigm works
Study 24 words naming twelve animals and twelve nonliving objects, one at a time, then count backward by threes and type the words recalled in any order. Three rounds repeat the same list in new seeded orders; one to three rounds can be set. Each half of the list contains six words of each class. Four separate practice words introduce studying, counting and recall.
More about the paradigm
Each language has its own list matched on mean displayed length and corpus frequency. All items meet a concrete, highly imageable word rubric; imageability judgments are from the builder, not participant norms. Study words appear for 3 seconds followed by 250 ms blank. Counting lasts 30 seconds and recall 60 seconds, with bounded settings. This short adaptation uses original lists and counting instead of the original digit judgments.
Recall accepts listed spelling forms and ignores case and accents, without fuzzy matching. Duplicate entries count once per round. The primary score is living minus nonliving recall. Compare within language; words can overlap with other memory tasks.
Scores
- Living Things Recall Advantage%
- Recall of living things minus recall of nonliving things, pooled over completed rounds. Positive values mean more recall of living things.
- Compare conditions within a study
- Living Things Recall%
- Distinct words recalled divided by words presented in this condition.
- Higher means more words recalled
- Nonliving Things Recall%
- Distinct words recalled divided by words presented in this condition.
- Higher means more words recalled
- Overall Recall%
- Words recalled divided by words presented across conditions.
- Higher means more words recalled
- Words Recalledcount
- Distinct words recalled, summed over scored rounds.
- Informational
- Words Presentedcount
- Study words across scored rounds. Repeated study rounds count again.
- Informational
- Words Outside the Listcount
- Entries that match no study word or accepted form.
- Review alongside recall
- Repeated Entriescount
- Words entered more than once within a recall period.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Entries within 100 ms of the start of recall; excluded from recall.
- Review
- Paste Attemptscount
- Paste and drop attempts blocked during recall.
- Review
- Counting Accuracy%
- Correct counts divided by all counts entered during scored delays.
- Higher means more accurate counting
- Counting Answerscount
- Numbers entered during the scored delays.
- Review when zero
- Rounds Scoredcount
- Completed recall periods from the most complete run.
- Compare with planned rounds
- Planned Roundscount
- Study and recall rounds assigned at the start.
- Informational
- First Round Difference%
- Recall of living things minus recall of nonliving things in the first scored round.
- Compare conditions
- Last Round Difference%
- Recall of living things minus recall of nonliving things in the last scored round.
- Compare conditions
Use and evidence
49 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 26% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 362 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 10 |
| 2024 | 11 |
| 2023 | 12 |
| 2022 | 7 |
| 2021 | 9 |
| 2020 | 6 |
| 2019 | 11 |
| 2018 | 11 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 9 |
| 2015 | 6 |
| 2014 | 6 |
| 2013 | 5 |
| 2012 | 2 |
| 2011 | 2 |
| 2010 | 2 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 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
- 2
- 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.
Note on the counts: includes some papers on animacy in sentence processing.
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 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Words
- 24 original words in each of eight languages, with four separate practice words. Twelve words per condition.
- Study
- Each word appears for 3 seconds with a 250 ms blank. The display time can be set from 1.5 to 5 seconds.
- Rounds
- Three study and recall rounds of the same list; configurable from one to three. Every half-list balances both word classes.
- Delay
- 30 seconds of typed counting backward by threes, configurable from 15 to 60 seconds.
- Recall
- 60 seconds to type words in any order, configurable from 30 to 120 seconds. Each distinct word counts once per round. Listed forms count; case and accents are ignored, with no fuzzy matching.
- Comparison
- Living minus nonliving recall, with each condition and the first and last rounds reported separately.
Original lists matched within language on length and corpus frequency, with high imageability judged by a concrete-word rubric rather than participant norms. This shorter version uses counting during the delay. Compare within language; norms are off.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: animacy_memory_recall from the most complete run, practice excluded. Typed recall has no chance level. Entries within 100 ms are anticipations and do not count. Missing rounds, no recall, excessive intrusions, paste attempts and omitted or inaccurate counting are flagged. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
A recall difference describes the study conditions. Low recall can be a real result, so it is reviewed rather than judged against chance. Counting fills the delay before recall. There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Study and recall rounds | 3 | 1 to 3 |
| Time per word (ms) | 3,000 | 1,500 to 5,000 |
| Counting before recall (seconds) | 30 | 15 to 60 |
| Recall time (seconds) | 60 | 30 to 120 |
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 Living Things Memory Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Nairne et al., 2013), with the standard settings (study and recall rounds: 3; time per word (ms): 3,000; counting before recall (seconds): 30; recall time (seconds): 60). The main score was living things recall advantage (recall of living things minus recall of nonliving things, pooled over completed rounds).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Nairne, J. S., VanArsdall, J. E., Pandeirada, J. N. S., Cogdill, M., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Adaptive memory: The mnemonic value of animacy. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2099-2105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480803
Source papers
Questions
How long does the Living Things Memory Task take?
About 9 to 10 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?
Living Things Recall Advantage, Living Things Recall, Nonliving Things Recall, Overall Recall, Words Recalled, Words Presented, Words Outside the List, Repeated Entries, Anticipations, Paste Attempts, Counting Accuracy, Counting Answers, Rounds Scored, Planned Rounds, First Round Difference and Last Round Difference. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Living Things Memory Task used in research?
49 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 26% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 362 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Living Things Memory 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?
Study and recall rounds (1 to 3), time per word (ms) (1,500 to 5,000), counting before recall (seconds) (15 to 60) and recall time (seconds) (30 to 120). 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.