ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2023
Direct brain recordings suggest a causal subsequent-memory effect.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time-Resolved Aperiodic and Oscillatory Dynamics during Human Visual Memory Encoding.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Penn Electrophysiology of Encoding and Retrieval Study.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Endogenous variation in brain state and stimulus-specific evoked activity can both contribute to successful encoding. Previous studies, however, have not clearly distinguished among these components. We address this question by analysing intracranial EEG recorded from epilepsy patients as they studied and subsequently recalled lists of words. We first trained classifiers to predict recall of either single items or entire lists and found that both classifiers exhibited similar performance. We found that list-level classifier output-a biomarker of successful encoding-tracked item presentation and recall events, despite having no information about the trial structure. Across widespread brain regions, decreased low- and increased high-frequency activity (HFA) marked successful encoding of both items and lists. We found regional differences in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, where in the hippocampus HFA correlated more strongly with item recall, whereas, in the prefrontal cortex, HFA correlated more strongly with list performance. Despite subtle differences in item- and list-level features, the similarity in overall classification performance, spectral signatures of successful recall and fluctuations of spectral activity across the encoding period argue for a shared endogenous process that causally impacts the brain's ability to learn new information.
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.