ArticleNature human behaviour2026
The role of context in continuity and segmentation.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. 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.
- Competing speech streams are simultaneously represented in the human cortex during attention switching.PLoS biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human experience intertwines continuity, the seamless flow of events, with segmentation, the spontaneous partitioning of experience into discrete units. Despite their cognitive significance, it is unclear whether these processes operate independently or share a common mechanism. Here we explored this question by examining the link between serial dependence (SD)-the tendency to align perceptions with prior decisions-and the impact of event boundaries, prompted by contextual shifts, on memory. Considering a Bayesian perspective that associates SD with predictions, and segmentation with prediction errors, a common mechanism may govern both processes. Across three experiments (N = 816), we tested how contextual changes affect SD and segmentation-related memory effects. The results indicate that both processes are context-sensitive. Contextual boundaries can reduce SD even in the absence of sensory change, and boundaries modulate memory in ways consistent with event segmentation. Yet, across experiments we observed dissociable patterns of boundary effects on SD and memory, which are slightly more consistent with distinct contextual influences on perception and memory than with a single unified predictive system. Boundary effects on SD and memory did not covary across participants, but given the low within-participant reliability of these measures, this absence of correlation cannot be taken as strong evidence for independence. Overall, our findings show that both SD and memory are shaped by context, but clarifying whether they reflect a shared or partly distinct mechanism will require further research.
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.