ReviewActa neurochirurgica2023
Brain stimulation and elicited memories.
Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. 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.
- Default mode network connectivity predicts individual differences in long-term forgetting: Evidence for storage degradation, not retrieval failure.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The anterior-posterior gradient of the fusiform gyrus modulates the transition between mnemonic and perceptual features during reminiscences.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Evoking artificial speech perception through invasive brain stimulation for brain-computer interfaces: current challenges and future perspectives.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Consciousness: a neurosurgical perspective.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the late 1930s, electric brain stimulation (EBS) in awake patients has been known to occasionally elicit patient descriptions of a form of memory flashbacks, known as experiential phenomena. One understanding of these sensations are as caused by an augmentation of the capacity for memory retrieval. However, an alternative hypothesis holds that memory flashbacks during EBS are "synthetic constructions" in the form of mental events, falsely interpreted as memories.
methodsA critical narrative review is used to discuss the false memory hypothesis in relation to the current empirical literature and source attribution theory.
resultsEBS as well as situational demands in the form of interaction between patient and neurosurgeon may both lead to the creation of mental events and influence their interpretation in a way that may create false memories. The false memory hypothesis provides a potential explanation for several apparent inconsistencies in the current literature such as (a) the fragmented nature of experiential reports, (b) the ability of EBS to induce memory retrieval errors in controlled studies, (c) that Penfield's elicitations of experiential phenomena are so rarely replicated in the modern era, and (d) the limited utility of techniques that elicit experiential phenomena in the treatment of memory disorders.
conclusionsThe hypothesis that experiential phenomena may largely be "synthetic constructions" deserves serious consideration by neurosurgeons.
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.