ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2019
Predicting memory formation over multiple study episodes.
Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial contexts with reliable neural representations support reinstatement of subsequently placed objects.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- How sturdy is your memory palace? Reliable room representations predict subsequent reinstatement of placed objects.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Variation in encoding context benefits item recognition.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Using the phenomenology of memory for recent events to bridge the gap between episodic and semantic memory.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
- Repeated encoding fosters retention of perceptual detail in visual recognition memory.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Predicting memory formation over multiple study episodes.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeated study typically improves episodic memory performance. Two different types of explanations of this phenomenon have been put forward: (1) reactivating the same representations strengthens and stabilizes memories, or (2) greater encoding variability benefits memory by promoting richer traces. The present experiment directly compared these predictions in a design with multiple repeated study episodes, allowing to dissociate memory for studied items and their context of study. Participants repeatedly encoded names of famous people four times, either in the same task, or in different tasks. During the test phase, an old/new judgment task was used to assess item memory, followed by a source memory judgment about the encoding task. Consistent with predictions from the encoding variability view, encoding stimulus in different contexts resulted in higher item memory. In contrast, consistent with the reactivation view, source memory performance was higher when participants encoded stimuli in the same task repeatedly. Taken together, our findings indicate that encoding variability benefits episodic memory, by increasing the number of items that are recalled. These benefits are however at the expenses of source recollection and memory for details, which are decreased, likely due to interference and generalization across 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.