Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40494994›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Expectation-[in]congruence differentially impacts recall and recognition of object features.

Kimele Persaud, Carla Macias, Elizabeth Bonawitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Kimele PersaudDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University-Newark, Newark, NJ, USA. kimele.persaud@rutgers.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8269-658X
Carla MaciasDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University-Newark, Newark, NJ, USA.
Elizabeth BonawitzGraduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

NSF StemEd Postdoctoral Fellowship 2412203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study events that are congruent with our prior expectations are better remembered than expectation-unrelated events. Paradoxically, events that are highly incongruent with expectations are also better remembered. In this study, we explore whether this paradoxical finding persists in object featural memory. Specifically, we examine whether memory for expectation-congruent and incongruent features of objects is differentially impacted by the processes that underlie recall and recognition and the types of information being probed. In three experiments, we manipulated the degree to which object features adhered to people's prior expectations (i.e., colors of objects) and then assessed memory (recall and recognition) for expectation-relevant features (i.e., object-color) and expectation-irrelevant features (i.e., object-shape). While both expectation-congruent and incongruent features were equally well recognized, only expectation-congruent features were better recalled compared to expectation-unrelated features. Furthermore, only strong expectation-congruence created a memory advantage for expectation-irrelevant object features. These findings suggest that in object featural memory, expectation-congruence and incongruence are qualitatively dissociable in their impact on recognition and recall processes. The findings from this work have important implications for cognitive and neuroscientific theories of how prior expectations shape the representation of objects and their constituent features in episodic memory.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalColor PerceptionMental RecallPattern Recognition, VisualRecognition, PsychologyAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultCognitionColorCongruency effectsMemoryObject-featurePrior expectationsRecallRecognition

Identifiers

PMID40494994
PMCPMC12864325

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.