ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2022
Novel immersive virtual reality experiences do not produce retroactive memory benefits for unrelated material.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural and Navigational Features Influencing the Novelty Induced Benefits on Episodic Memory.Hippocampus · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Tag and capture: how salient experiences target and rescue nearby events in memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The experience of novelty can enhance memory for information that occurs close in time, even if not directly related to the experience-a phenomenon called "behavioural tagging." For example, an animal exposed to a novel spatial environment shows improved memory for other information presented previously. This has been linked to neurochemical modulations induced by novelty, which affect consolidation of memories for experiences that were encoded around the same time. Neurophysiological research in animals has shown that novelty benefits weakly encoded but not strongly encoded information. However, a benefit that is selective to weak memories seems difficult to reconcile with studies in humans that have reported that novelty improves recollection, but not familiarity. One possibility is that the novelty increases activity in hippocampus, which is also associated with processes that enable recollection. This is consistent with another prediction of behavioural tagging theory, namely that novelty only enhances consolidation of information that converges on the same neuronal population. However, no study has directly explored the relationship between encoding strength and retrieval quality (recollection versus familiarity). We examined the effects of exposure to a novel immersive virtual reality environment on memory for words presented immediately beforehand, under either deep or shallow encoding tasks, and by testing both recall memory immediately, and recognition memory with remember/know instructions the next day. However, Bayes factors showed no evidence to support the behavioural tagging predictions: that novelty would improve memory, particularly for shallowly encoded words, and this improvement would differentially affect familiarity versus recollection.
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.