ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Pupil Fluctuations Signal Intentional Forgetting of Natural Scenes.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing encoding through repeated study affects retrieval related pupil dilation during cued recall, but not during recognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pupil Fluctuations Signal Intentional Forgetting of Natural Scenes.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies have revealed that information can be intentionally forgotten when instructed, commonly studied in the laboratory with the directed forgetting (DF) procedure. The current investigation examined pupillometric signals associated with intentional forgetting, as the pupil reflects the activity in the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) system that is functionally involved in the neural correlates of intentional forgetting. Experiment 1 employed an item-method DF paradigm, where participants were presented with natural scenes, each followed by a memory cue to either remember (R) or forget (F) that scene. At test, participants were asked to judge whether the presented scene was the original studied version (i.e., "Old") or a mirrored variant (i.e., "Lure"). By comparing pupil dilation during test trials between R-cued and F-cued scenes for both hit and miss trials, we found greater pupil dilation for F-cued miss trials compared to R-cued miss trials, but no difference in pupil dilation between the cue conditions for hit trials. This suggests a unique pupillometric pattern linked to successful intentional forgetting. Experiment 2 was aimed at assessing if memory strength differences could provide an explanation for the observed effect. Instead of DF cues, we manipulated memory strength by repeating a subset of scenes, thereby converting all study items into R-cued items with different degrees of familiarity. We observed no difference in pupil dilation between strongly encoded and weakly encoded scenes at test, indicating that encoding strength by itself did not explain the difference in pupil dilation resulting from intentional forgetting. Together, these findings provide novel evidence that pupil fluctuations during retrieval index successful intentional forgetting.
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.