Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32954007›Full record

ReviewBrain and neuroscience advances

Naïve to expert: Considering the role of previous knowledge in memory.

Alejandra Alonso, Jacqueline van der Meij, Dorothy Tse, Lisa Genzel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain and neuroscience advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Memory engram stability and flexibility.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. To update or to create? The influence of novelty and prior knowledge on memory networks.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  12. Memory's gatekeeper: The role of PFC in the encoding of congruent events.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Alejandra AlonsoDonders Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline van der MeijDonders Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dorothy TseCenter for Discovery Brain Sciences, Edinburgh Neuroscience, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lisa GenzelDonders Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9537-7959

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In humans, most of our new memories are in some way or another related to what we have already experienced. However, in memory research, especially in non-human animal research, subjects are often mostly naïve to the world. But we know that previous knowledge will change how memories are processed and which brain areas are critical at which time point. Each process from encoding, consolidation, to memory retrieval will be affected. Here, we summarise previous knowledge effects on the neurobiology of memory in both humans and non-human animals, with a special focus on schemas - associative network structures. Furthermore, we propose a new theory on how there may be a continuous gradient from naïve to expert, which would modulate the importance and role of brain areas, such as the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex.

Indexed as

cortexhippocampusmemory consolidationprefrontal cortexprevious knowledgeSchema

Identifiers

PMID32954007
PMCPMC7479862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.