ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Autonomy in learning: Predictability modulates the beneficial effect of choice on memory.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When people are offered the opportunity to choose, they tend to learn better. However, the cognitive mechanisms of the beneficial effect of choice on memory remain to be further investigated. On the one hand, self-determination theory has proposed that choices themselves might be motivating in and of themselves, even when their consequences are not predictable. On the other hand, from a predictive coding perspective, choices facilitate learning because they enhance the prediction of upcoming information. To delve deeper into these two interpretations, we conducted two experiments using a learning task in which we independently manipulated choice and predictability. In Experiment 1, we included 55 participants, while Experiment 2 included 56 participants. In half of the blocks, participants could choose which object they wanted to see (choice), while in other blocks, the choices were made for them (no choice). Meanwhile, in half of the choice and no-choice blocks, they would always see the selected object (high-predictability), while in other blocks, they had a 50% chance to see the selected object (low-predictability). The memory accuracy was tested by a recognition task. In both experiments, we found that the facilitatory effect of choice on memory accuracy existed under both high and low predictability. However, this effect was smaller under low predictability. These findings provided evidence for both interpretations: choices enhance learning because they are motivating by themselves, meanwhile facilitating prediction processes. This study has important implications for education, urging teachers to offer choices to students and to satisfy students' needs in classroom settings.
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.