ArticleMemory & cognition2026
The role of compatibility in long-term action-effect binding and effect memory.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The representational nature of action-effect relations: A memory process dissociation approach.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Through interactions with our environment, we cause perceivable effects. In four experiments, we investigated long-term bindings between action and effect features in action-effect episodes, and how they are influenced by action-effect compatibility (AEC). In addition, we asked whether AEC facilitates memory for effects. In a prime phase, participants performed actions that resulted in an effect that comprised two features, namely a spatial feature (a linear movement or rotation of a box in a certain direction) and a certain identity of a word presented in that box. The effect movement or rotation was either spatially compatible or incompatible (or neutral, in Experiment 3) to the action. In a subsequent probe phase, we assessed whether participants were inclined to repeat the action when re-presented with the effect word. Memory for effect words was also tested. Results showed a higher propensity to repeat an action in Experiments 1-3, but not when the influence of spatial effect features was reduced (Experiment 4). Participants further tended to retrieve the spatial effect location in the neutral condition to a similar extent to in the compatible and incompatible condition in Experiment 3. These findings suggest long-term feature bindings after one-shot learning of action-effect episodes, although primarily due to bindings between different effect features rather than between action and effect features. AEC facilitated memory for effect words in a free recall test (Experiment 1) given repeated presentation of the effect word, but not in a recognition test (Experiments 2-4). Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.
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.