Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41256715›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025

Strong mnemonic prediction errors increase cognitive control, attention, and arousal.

Alice M Xue, Jenna Jokhani, Anthony M Norcia, Anthony D Wagner

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Alice M XueStanford Department of Psychology.ORCID 0009-0006-3176-8786
Jenna JokhaniStanford Department of Psychology.
Anthony M NorciaStanford Department of Psychology.
Anthony D WagnerStanford Department of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0003-0624-4543

Funding

Effects of attention and goal-state lapses on memory in healthy and pathological agingR01AG065255 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WAGNER, ANTHONY D · 2020 to 2024
$3.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG065255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ongoing experience is continuously processed in the context of past events. Divergence between current experience and memory-based predictions (i.e., a mnemonic prediction error; MPE) is theorized to be a signal for the hippocampus that encoding, as opposed to retrieval, should be prioritized. We asked how MPEs place demands on cognitive and neural resources beyond the hippocampus, and whether these demands differ as a function of prediction strength. We investigated these questions across two experiments, wherein we recorded scalp electroencephalography and/or pupillometry as 101 young human adults performed an associative memory task. Strong MPEs, more so than weak MPEs, increased physiological indices of cognitive control (frontal theta), attention (posterior alpha and pupil size), and arousal (pupil size). Trial-level pupil-linked MPE responses scaled with the amount of attention (posterior alpha) allocated during prediction generation. Finally, greater cognitive control (frontal theta) during strong MPEs promoted better learning of prediction violating (i.e., unexpected) stimuli. Collectively, these findings reveal how the mind and brain respond adaptively to violations of strong mnemonic predictions.

Identifiers

PMID41256715
PMCPMC12622033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.