SynthesisNeuropsychology review2025
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Neural Correlates of Direct vs. Generative Retrieval of Episodic Autobiographical Memory.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Autobiographical memory in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- The role of reactivations during consolidation in the structure and accessibility of episodic autobiographical memories.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Adrenarche as a regulator of sensitivity to early adversity.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2026Review
- Engram cell vulnerability in neurodegeneration: from mechanistic insights to therapeutic horizons.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
- 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
There is a widespread view that episodic autobiographical memories (EAMs) can be retrieved "directly" or "generatively." However, the neural mechanisms underlying these retrieval modes have been overlooked in the literature, likely due to the difficulty of operationalizing the two notions. Here, we propose to operationalize direct vs. generative retrieval based on memory cue specificity, in terms of EAMs elicited by specific/personalized vs. generic memory cues, respectively. After completing a literature search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science) in 2023, we performed a multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) to directly compare activations from 32 neuroimaging studies investigating these two EAM retrieval modalities with the above memory cue distinction. Both direct and generative retrieval showed common activations of the left hippocampus, bilateral angular gyrus, and posterior cingulate cortex. The direct vs. generative comparison revealed the activation of a brain circuit comprising the anterior and posterior cortical midline, the left angular gyrus, and the right cerebellum. Previous literature suggests that these regions play a role in self-referential processes, indicating that direct access to EAMs may be supported by the recruitment of self-related neural resources that facilitate the retrieval of personal memories. Conversely, generative vs. direct MKDA revealed the activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. As this region has been previously associated with schematic memory, its involvement may emphasize the "constructive" nature of generative EAM retrieval. Overall, the current findings extend the previous literature by providing the neurobiological foundation of direct and generative EAM retrieval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39653872What 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.