ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2017
Cortical Networks Involved in Memory for Temporal Order.
Article in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- No facilitatory effects of transcranial random noise stimulation on motion processing: A registered report.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Article
- Altered Time Awareness in Dementia.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We examined the neurobiological basis of temporal resetting, an aspect of temporal order memory, using a version of the delayed-match-to-multiple-sample task. While in an fMRI scanner, participants evaluated whether an item was novel or whether it had appeared before or after a reset event that signified the start of a new block of trials. Participants responded "old" to items that were repeated within the current block and "new" to both novel items and items that had last appeared before the reset event (pseudonew items). Medial-temporal, prefrontal, and occipital regions responded to absolute novelty of the stimulus-they differentiated between novel items and previously seen items, but not between old and pseudonew items. Activation for pseudonew items in the frontopolar and parietal regions, in contrast, was intermediate between old and new items. The posterior cingulate cortex extending to precuneus was the only region that showed complete temporal resetting, and its activation reflected whether an item was new or old according to the task instructions regardless of its familiarity. There was also a significant Condition (old/pseudonew) × Familiarity (second/third presentations) interaction effect on behavioral and neural measures. For pseudonew items, greater familiarity decreased response accuracy, increased RTs, increased ACC activation, and increased functional connectivity between ACC and the left frontal pole. The reverse was observed for old items. On the basis of these results, we propose a theoretical framework in which temporal resetting relies on an episodic retrieval network that is modulated by cognitive control and conflict resolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.