Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367027›Full record

ReviewNature2019

Memory editing from science fiction to clinical practice.

Elizabeth A Phelps, Stefan G Hofmann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The cognitive neuroscience of memory representations.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Mechanisms of Change in Exposure Therapy for Anxiety and Related Disorders: A Research Agenda.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Going Beyond Trauma: A Scoping Review on the Prevalence of Symptom-Relevant Negative Autobiographical Memories in Anxiety Disorders and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Clinical psychology : a publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Research Review: Why do prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment differ? A narrative review.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2024
    Review
  20. Recurrent negative autobiographical memories and mental health.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2024
    Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth A PhelpsDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. phelps@fas.harvard.edu.
Stefan G HofmannDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science fiction notions of altering problematic memories are starting to become reality as techniques emerge through which unique memories can be edited. Here we review memory-editing research with a focus on improving the treatment of psychopathology. Studies highlight two windows of memory vulnerability: initial storage, or consolidation; and re-storage after retrieval, or reconsolidation. Techniques have been identified that can modify memories at each stage, but translating these methods from animal models to humans has been challenging and implementation into clinical therapies has produced inconsistent benefits. The science of memory editing is more complicated and nuanced than fiction, but its rapid development holds promise for future applications.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansMemoryMemory ConsolidationMental RecallModels, AnimalPsychopathologyTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.