ArticleBrain and behavior2025
A New Measure of Mnemonic Discrimination Applicable to Recognition Memory Tests With Continuous Variation in Novel Stimulus Interference.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMnemonic discrimination (MD) involves distinguishing new stimuli from highly similar memories; it is impaired in the elderly and individuals with neuropsychiatric disorders and may also probe hippocampal dentate gyrus function. Measuring MD is, therefore, highly relevant; however, the gold-standard MD test, the mnemonic similarity task (MST), is rarely used in clinical research. Thus, it would be useful to develop a novel MD index applicable to recognition memory tasks that are commonly used in clinical research. The present study develops such a measure and demonstrates its convergent validity with the gold-standard MD index from the MST.
methodsWe derived participant-level indices of MD (λ) and overall recognition memory performance (Δ) by fitting a logistic function to the relationship between stimulus interference and the probability of classifying a stimulus as novel. We then applied these novel measures to two independent MST datasets (N = 18; N = 67) and to simulated MST data. We used linear mixed-effects model to test whether (1) λ predicts the MST's MD measure, the lure discrimination index (LDI), and (2) Δ predicts the MST's overall recognition memory index (REC).
resultsλ predicted LDI (β = 0.76, 95% CI [0.62, 0.91], p < 0.001) but not REC (β = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.15], p = 0.197), while Δ predicted REC (β = 0.93, 95% CI [0.83, 1.02], p < 0.001) but not LDI (β = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.09], p = 0.438). The λ and Δ indices were statistically independent, although simulations with synthetic data suggest that MD measurement may be compromised if overall recognition memory performance is impaired.
conclusionWe have developed a novel measure of MD applicable to two-choice recognition memory tasks that use stimuli with continuously varying degrees of similarity. Future studies should further validate this measure using large clinical datasets that include both MD and other recognition memory tasks.
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.