ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
The representational nature of action-effect relations: A memory process dissociation approach.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- From exemplars to categories: generalization of action-effect learning in a free-choice task.Psychological research · 2026Article
- The role of compatibility in long-term action-effect binding and effect memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning how actions change the environment is crucial for goal-directed actions and skill acquisition. Here, we applied a process dissociation approach to investigate the contribution of explicit and implicit memory to the learning of action-effect relations across four experiments. Participants produced object images by pressing one of two keys, with each action-effect episode experienced three times. Learning was either incidental (Experiments 1-2) or intentional (Experiments 2-4) and occurred under full (Experiments 1-4) or divided (Experiments 3-4) attention. In a test phase, participants were re-presented the effect images and asked to either reproduce or alternate the action that had produced them. Results obtained through cognitive modeling revealed that action-effect relations are primarily represented in explicit memory, with minimal contributions of implicit memory. Intentional learning enhanced memory compared to incidental learning, while divided attention during encoding reduced it, with these factors mainly affecting explicit memory. These findings elucidate the mechanisms underlying skill acquisition and provide insights into the representational nature of action-effect relations.
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.