ArticleBMC psychology2026
The influence of target detection on recognition memory during memory retrieval.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study developed a target detection delayed response task to investigate the impact of target detection on recognition memory. Participants performed a word recognition task accompanied by a target detection task, where they identified targets but refrained from responding (target decision trials); in subsequent trials, they responded to previously detected targets (target response trial), while in distraction trials, they ignored distractions. In Experiment 1, the proportions of target decision, target response, and distraction trials were equal. In Experiment 2, the proportions were 1:1:4. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the recognition response times (RTs) for both “old” and “new” words were significantly longer in the target decision compared to distraction trials, and the recognition RTs for “old” words were significantly shorter in the target response compared with distraction trials. The results of Experiment 2 showed that compared to the distraction trials, in the target decision trials, the recognition rates were significantly lower and the recognition RTs were significantly longer for “old” words, and the recognition RTs were also significantly longer for “new” words. Altogether, target decision interferes with the recognition of both “new” and “old” words, whereas target response promotes the recognition of “old” words.
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.