ArticleJournal of cognitive neuroscience2020
Examining the Neural Basis of Congruent and Incongruent Configural Contexts during Associative Retrieval.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Otter and the Cleaver: Exploring the Neural Underpinnings of Unitization Using the Gestalt Principle of Proximity.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- Understanding associative false memories in aging using multivariate analyses.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2022Article
- Age differences in Neural Activation to Face Trustworthiness: Voxel Pattern and Activation Level Assessments.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disrupting the configural context, or relative organization and orientation of paired stimuli, between encoding and retrieval negatively impacts memory. Using univariate and multivariate fMRI analyses, we examined the effect of retaining and manipulating the configural context on neural mechanisms supporting associative retrieval. Behavioral results showed participants had significantly higher hit rates for recollecting pairs in a contextually congruent, versus incongruent, configuration. In addition, contextual congruency between memory phases was a critical determinant to characterizing both the magnitude and patterns of neural activation within visual and parietal cortices. Regions within visual cortices also exhibited higher correlations between patterns of activity at encoding and retrieval when configural context was congruent across memory phases than incongruent. Collectively, these findings shed light on how manipulating configural context between encoding and retrieval affects associative recognition, with changes in the configural context leading to reductions in information transfer and increases in task difficulty.
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.