ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Environmental cues influence the unfolding and chaining of spontaneous simulations of future and past events.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Future and past events can come to mind spontaneously. Previous research has focused on the characteristics of future and past event simulations, but few studies have investigated the types of input that initiate these simulations. To gain insight into the underlying mechanisms, we used event and location cues to elicit spontaneous future and past simulations. We investigated two novel questions. How do event and location cues influence the spontaneous events reported? Do future events, like spontaneous autobiographical memories, occur in chained-event sequences consisting of multiple consecutively generated related events? In a vigilance task, 127 participants located a left-facing arrow among right-facing arrows. On 49 of 350 trials, participants encountered an event or location cue. On 10 occasions, participants audio-recorded off-task thoughts they felt comfortable sharing. We contribute four novel insights. Participants produced a greater number of future events for event than for location cues, whereas they produced a greater number of past events for location cues. For event cues, hypothetical future events were more frequent than planning. Spontaneous future simulations, like past event simulations, occurred in chained event sequences. Finally, the distributions of connections within future and past chains were influenced by the original cue. We integrate ideas from the Constructive Episodic Simulation Hypothesis and the dual-process account of deliberate and spontaneous future thoughts by treating constructive memory in terms of pattern completion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41565937What 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.