ArticleMemory (Hove, England)2024
Cross-cultural comparison of the neural correlates of true and false memory retrieval.
Article in Memory (Hove, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Culture, prefrontal volume, and memory.PloS one · 2024Trial
- The Importance of Studying the Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging Across Cultures.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Review
- How age and culture impact the neural correlates of memory retrieval.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of Age on Cross-Cultural Differences in the Neural Correlates of Memory Retrieval.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Do cultural differences emerge at different levels of representational hierarchy?Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Memory and aging across cultures.Current opinion in psychology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Prior work has shown Americans have higher levels of memory specificity than East Asians. Neuroimaging studies have not investigated mechanisms that account for cultural differences at retrieval. In this study, we use fMRI to assess whether mnemonic discrimination, distinguishing novel from previously encountered stimuli, accounts for cultural differences in memory. Fifty-five American and 55 Taiwanese young adults completed an object recognition paradigm testing discrimination of old targets, similar lures and novel foils. Mnemonic discrimination was tested by comparing discrimination of similar lures from studied targets, and results showed the relationship between activity in right fusiform gyrus and behavioural discrimination between target and lure objects differed across cultural groups. Parametric modulation analyses of activity during lure correct rejections also indicated that groups differed in left superior parietal cortex response to variations in lure similarity. Additional analyses of old vs. new activity indicated that Americans and Taiwanese differ in the neural activity supporting general object recognition in the hippocampus, left inferior frontal gyrus and middle frontal gyrus. Results are juxtaposed against comparisons of the regions activated in common across the two cultures. Overall, Americans and Taiwanese differ in the extent to which they recruit visual processing and attention modulating brain regions.
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.