ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023
Identifying causal subsequent memory effects.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural language processing captures memory content associated with shared neural patterns at encoding and retrieval.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Decoding Salience: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of Reward and Contextual Unexpectedness in Memory Encoding and Retrieval.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- The Brain's Topographical Organization Shapes Dynamic Interaction Patterns That Support Flexible Behavior Based on Rules and Long-Term Knowledge.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Direct brain recordings suggest a causal subsequent-memory effect.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over 40 y of accumulated research has detailed associations between neuroimaging signals measured during a memory encoding task and later memory performance, across a variety of brain regions, measurement tools, statistical approaches, and behavioral tasks. But the interpretation of these subsequent memory effects (SMEs) remains unclear: if the identified signals reflect cognitive and neural mechanisms of memory encoding, then the underlying neural activity must be causally related to future memory. However, almost all previous SME analyses do not control for potential confounders of this causal interpretation, such as serial position and item effects. We collect a large fMRI dataset and use an experimental design and analysis approach that allows us to statistically adjust for nearly all known exogenous confounding variables. We find that, using standard approaches without adjustment, we replicate several univariate and multivariate subsequent memory effects and are able to predict memory performance across people. However, we are unable to identify any signal that reliably predicts subsequent memory after adjusting for confounding variables, bringing into doubt the causal status of these effects. We apply the same approach to subjects' judgments of learning collected following an encoding period and show that these behavioral measures of mnemonic status do predict memory after adjustments, suggesting that it is possible to measure signals near the time of encoding that reflect causal mechanisms but that existing neuroimaging measures, at least in our data, may not have the precision and specificity to do so.
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.