ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Variation in encoding context benefits item recognition.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial contexts with reliable neural representations support reinstatement of subsequently placed objects.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- How sturdy is your memory palace? Reliable room representations predict subsequent reinstatement of placed objects.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Replicability of representational similarity and its role in successful memory retrieval.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
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
The current study assesses whether varying the encoding context of a repeated event is a potential strategy to improve recognition memory across retrieval contexts. Context variability, also known as encoding variability, has historically been investigated primarily using recall and cued recall tasks, with the consensus being that encoding variability is not necessarily beneficial for episodic retrieval. However, recent studies (see text) suggest that test type may determine the strategy's effectiveness. Aligned with these recent findings, we found consistent benefits to simple item recognition when a word was studied in more variable contexts compared to less variable contexts across four experiments. This main effect of context variability occurred when crossed with a manipulation of repetition spacing and when crossed with a manipulation of encoding-retrieval context match. Variation in encoding contexts beyond the future retrieval context led to better item recognition than repeated study exposures within the future retrieval context. We argue that the current study and other recent findings indicate a need to re-evaluate the historical consensus on encoding variability as a beneficial strategy for learning.
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.