Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581311›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Encoding tasks moderated the reward effect on brain activity during memory retrieval.

Qianqian Ding, Jinfu Zhu, Chunping Yan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Qianqian DingCollege of Psychology, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China.
Jinfu ZhuCollege of Psychology, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China. zhujinfu66@163.com.
Chunping YanCollege of Psychology, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, China. chunpingyan@xxmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have explored the effects of retrieval reward and depth of processing in encoding on recognition, but it remains unclear whether and how reward and depth of processing during encoding influence recognition. We investigated the effect and neural mechanisms of encoding reward and processing depth on recognition using event-related potentials (ERPs) in this study. In the study phase, participants were asked to perform two encoding tasks: congruity-judgment (deep processing) and size-judgment (shallow processing) in reward and no-reward conditions. The test phases included object (item) and background (source) tests. The results of item retrieval showed that the accuracy of rewarded items was higher than that of unrewarded items only in the congruity-judgment task, and the reward effect (the average amplitudes in the reward condition were significantly more positive than those in the no-reward condition) in the 300-500 and 500-700 ms were greater in the congruity-judgment task than in the size-judgment task. The results of source retrieval showed that the accuracy of rewarded items was higher than that of unrewarded items, that the difference in the size-judgment task was significantly larger, and that the reward effect in the 300-500 and 500-700 ms were greater in the size-judgment task than in the congruity-judgment task. In conclusion, the encoding task moderated the reward effect in item and source memory.

Indexed as

Evoked PotentialsMemoryBrainHumansMental RecallRecognition, PsychologyReward

Identifiers

PMID35581311
PMCPMC9114383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.