ArticlePLoS biology2025
Involuntary and voluntary memory retrieval relies on distinct neural representations and oscillatory processes.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. 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.
- How does the brain remember? Distinct pathways for voluntary and involuntary recall.PLoS biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Involuntary memory retrieval is a hallmark symptom of posttraumatic stress disorder and a frequent phenomenon in everyday autobiographical memory. However, the neural mechanisms that drive involuntary retrieval remain unclear. This study aims to elucidate how involuntary retrieval spontaneously initiates memory reactivation and how the reactivated neural representations differ in their content, distinctiveness and temporal compression from voluntary retrieval. Combining a visual half-field paradigm with electroencephalography recordings (EEG) in humans, we tracked reactivation of item-specific neural representations and sensory feature representations measured as representational similarity between different items sharing the same sensory feature - the visual field at encoding. We show that involuntary retrieval reactivated sensory feature-dependent yet item-unspecific representations via temporally extended memory replay, accompanied by rapid mid-frontal theta-power increases, indicating memory interference. This neural process differed from voluntary retrieval which recruited goal-directed memory search processes in prefrontal-medial temporal lobe theta-bands to reactivate temporally compressed item-specific representations devoid of visual field specific sensory feature representations at encoding. Our findings demonstrate that involuntary memories rely on distinct neural processes that access different representational formats compared to voluntary retrieval offering a nuanced understanding of episodic memory functioning relevant to psychological well-being.
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.