ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Brain regions supporting retrieval of words drawn at encoding: fMRI evidence for multimodal reactivation.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. 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.
- Old-New Recognition Memory Revisited.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Neural subnetwork signatures distinguishing source and item memory retrieval: A meta-analysis of 66 fMRI studies.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Memory for words that are drawn or sketched by the participant, rather than written, during encoding is typically superior. While this drawing benefit has been reliably demonstrated in recent years, there has yet to be an investigation of its neural basis. Here, we asked participants to either create drawings, repeatedly write, or list physical characteristics depicting each target word during encoding. Participants then completed a recognition memory test for target words while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Behavioural results showed memory was significantly higher for words drawn than written, replicating the typical drawing effect. Memory for words whose physical characteristics were listed at encoding was also higher than for those written repeatedly, but lower than for those drawn. Voxel-wise analyses of fMRI data revealed two distributed sets of brain regions more active for items drawn relative to written, the left angular gyrus (BA 39) and bilateral frontal (BA 10) regions, suggesting integration and self-referential processing during retrieval of drawn words. Brain-behaviour correlation analyses showed that the size of one's memory benefit for words drawn relative to written at encoding was positively correlated with activation in brain regions linked to visual representation and imagery (BA 17 and cuneus) and motor planning (premotor and supplementary motor areas; BA 6). This study suggests that drawing benefits memory by coactivating multiple sensory traces. Target words drawn during encoding are subsequently remembered by re-engaging visual, motoric, and semantic representations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38865077What 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.