Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38922182›Full record

ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Eyes on Memory: Pupillometry in Encoding and Retrieval.

Alex Kafkas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Unexpected Events Resist Directed Forgetting.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alex KafkasSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Psychology, Communication and Human Neuroscience, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/Y004507/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review critically examines the contributions of pupillometry to memory research, primarily focusing on its enhancement of our understanding of memory encoding and retrieval mechanisms mainly investigated with the recognition memory paradigm. The evidence supports a close link between pupil response and memory formation, notably influenced by the type of novelty detected. This proposal reconciles inconsistencies in the literature regarding pupil response patterns that may predict successful memory formation, and highlights important implications for encoding mechanisms. The review also discusses the pupil old/new effect and its significance in the context of recollection and in reflecting brain signals related to familiarity or novelty detection. Additionally, the capacity of pupil response to serve as a true memory signal and to distinguish between true and false memories is evaluated. The evidence provides insights into the nature of false memories and offers a novel understanding of the cognitive mechanisms involved in memory distortions. When integrated with rigorous experimental design, pupillometry can significantly refine theoretical models of memory encoding and retrieval. Furthermore, combining pupillometry with neuroimaging and pharmacological interventions is identified as a promising direction for future research.

Indexed as

encodingepisodic memoryfalse memoryfamiliarityneurotransmissionnoveltypupil responserecollection

Identifiers

PMID38922182
PMCPMC11209248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.