ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing encoding through repeated study affects retrieval related pupil dilation during cued recall, but not during recognition.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In addition to its well-known association with mental effort, pupil dilation provides insight into the cognitive and neurobiological basis of episodic memory. Notably, pupil responses during retrieval are influenced by the encoding conditions under which the information was originally learned. In our study, we manipulated encoding by presenting participants with word pairs either once or twice, and then examined pupil responses during subsequent retrieval tasks that employed either a recognition or a cued recall paradigm. Repeated encoding led to higher accuracy and faster response times, confirming enhanced memory performance across both tasks. Critically, however, the strengthening of memory traces was accompanied by reduced pupil dilation only in the cued recall task, suggesting that stronger memories required less cognitive effort during the demanding recall process. In contrast, during the recognition task, despite a robust pupil old/new effect (e.g. increased pupil responses to correct "old" responses relative to correct "new" responses) the magnitude of pupil dilation was not modulated by memory trace strength. This implies that, in recognition decisions, pupil responses may primarily reflect the recollection-familiarity dichotomy rather than memory trace strength. Overall, our findings demonstrate that the type of memory test influences how effectively pupillometry can assess memory trace strength.
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.