ArticleMemory (Hove, England)2023
Informative and uninformative prestimulus cues at encoding benefit familiarity and source memory.
Article in Memory (Hove, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Context familiarity is a third kind of episodic memory distinct from item familiarity and recollection.iScience · 2024Article
- Individual differences in cognitive performance under pain linked to region-specific alpha power modulations.Neurobiology of pain (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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
Previous research has shown that neural activity elicited by informative prestimulus cues during encoding differ with respect to subsequent memory outcomes. These findings indicate prestimulus cues create a "brain state" associated with subsequent memory that, potentially, also has downstream effects benefitting processes associated with successful encoding and subsequent memory performance. However, previous studies have not included the conditions necessary to appropriately test this latter assumption. The present study examines how informative and uninformative prestimulus encoding cues affect memory accuracy for upcoming stimuli compared to a no cue condition. At encoding, participants made one of two semantic judgments on words preceded by an informative prestimulus cue that identified the upcoming semantic judgment, an uninformative prestimulus cue that signalled an upcoming trial but no information about the semantic judgment, or no cue. Dual process estimates of familiarity, but not recollection, demonstrated a graded pattern with the informativeness of the prestimulus cues (i.e., informative > uninformative > no cues). Moreover, both informative and uninformative prestimulus cues enhanced subsequent source memory accuracy for the encoding task compared to the no cue condition. These findings suggest that prestimulus cues can strengthen the processes that support successful memory encoding and benefit subsequent familiarity and source memory.
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.