ArticleScandinavian journal of psychology2022
Expectation of irrelevant novel stimuli has no consistent effect on recognition memory.
Article in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Differential effects of expectancy on memory formation in young and older adults.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
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
Abstract
Novelty is defined as the part of an experience that is not yet represented by memory systems. Novelty has been claimed to exert various memory-enhancing effects. A pioneering study by Wittmann et al. (2007) has shown that memory formation may even benefit from the expectation of novelty. We aimed to replicate this assumed memory effect in four behavioral studies. However, our results do not support the idea that anticipated novel stimuli are more memorable than unexpected novelty. In our experiments, we systematically manipulated the novelty predicting cues to ensure that the expectations were correctly formed by the participants, however, the results showed that there was no memory enhancement for expected novel pictures in any of the examined indices, thus we could not replicate the main behavioral finding of Wittmann et al. (2007). These results call into question the original effect, and we argue that this fits more into current thinking on memory formation and brain function in general. Our results are more consistent with the view that unexpected stimuli are more likely to be retained by memory systems. Predictive coding theory suggests that unexpected stimuli are prioritized by the nervous system and this may also benefit memory processes. Novel stimuli may be unexpected and thus recognized better in some experimental setups, yet novelty and unexpectedness do not always coincide. We hope that our work can bring more consistency in the literature on novelty, as educational methods in general could also benefit from this clarification.
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.