ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2020
Predictability Changes What We Remember in Familiar Temporal Contexts.
Article in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Schemas, reinforcement learning and the medial prefrontal cortex.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
- Suppressing the Maintenance of Information in Working Memory Alters Long-term Memory Traces.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
- Predictions transform memories: How expected versus unexpected events are integrated or separated in memory.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Temporal Dynamics of Competition between Statistical Learning and Episodic Memory in Intracranial Recordings of Human Visual Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Forgetting as a form of adaptive engram cell plasticity.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2022Review
- Mnemonic prediction errors promote detailed memories.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Long-term memory guides resource allocation in working memory.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The human brain constantly anticipates the future based on memories of the past. Encountering a familiar situation reactivates memory of previous encounters, which can trigger a prediction of what comes next to facilitate responsiveness. However, a prediction error can lead to pruning of the offending memory, a process that weakens its representation in the brain and leads to forgetting. Our goal in this study was to evaluate whether memories are spared from such pruning in situations that allow for accurate predictions at the categorical level, despite prediction errors at the item level. Participants viewed a sequence of objects, some of which reappeared multiple times ("cues"), followed always by novel items. Half of the cues were followed by new items from different (unpredictable) categories, while others were followed by new items from a single (predictable) category. Pattern classification of fMRI data was used to identify category-specific predictions after each cue. Pruning was observed only in unpredictable contexts, while encoding of new items was less robust in predictable contexts. These findings demonstrate that how associative memories are updated is influenced by the reliability of abstract-level predictions in familiar contexts.
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.