Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038184›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Episodic details are better remembered in plausible relative to implausible counterfactual simulations.

Ricardo Morales-Torres, Kaylee Miceli, Shenyang Huang, Karl Szpunar, Felipe De Brigard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Ricardo Morales-Torres *Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Levine Science Research Center, Duke University, 308 Research Drive, Room C03E, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-3663
Kaylee Miceli *Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Levine Science Research Center, Duke University, 308 Research Drive, Room C03E, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Shenyang HuangCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Levine Science Research Center, Duke University, 308 Research Drive, Room C03E, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Karl SzpunarDepartment of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Felipe De BrigardCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Levine Science Research Center, Duke University, 308 Research Drive, Room C03E, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. felipe.debrigard@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People often engage in episodic counterfactual thinking, or mentally simulating how the experienced past might have been different from how it was. A commonly held view is that mentally simulating alternative event outcomes aids in managing future uncertainty and improving behavior, for which episodic counterfactual simulations need to be remembered. Yet the phenomenological factors influencing the memorability of counterfactual simulations remain unclear. To investigate this, we conducted two experiments using a paradigm where participants recalled autobiographical memories. After 1 week, they created counterfactual mental simulations of these memories, integrating a new object into each one and rating them on various phenomenological characteristics. Memory for these counterfactual mental simulations was tested the next day by recalling the new object. Across the two experiments we found that objects included in more plausible counterfactual simulations were better remembered compared with implausible counterfactual simulations. Our findings suggest that generating episodic counterfactual simulations perceived as plausible enhances their memorability, similar to other memory phenomena in which schematic knowledge improves subsequent episodic memory.

Indexed as

ImaginationMemory, EpisodicMental RecallThinkingAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultEpisodic counterfactual thinkingEpisodic memoryMental simulationPlausibility

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.