ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Does signed prediction error drive declarative memory? Evidence from variable choice paradigms.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prediction error (PE) is the discrepancy between predictions and new information. For a binary reward outcome, PE may be signed (positive if the outcome was better than predicted and negative if the outcome was worse than predicted) or unsigned (absolute value of "surprise"). Using a "variable choice" paradigm, De Loof et al. (PLOS ONE, 131, Article e0189212, 2018) examined the role of PE in one-shot learning of unknown translations of known words and showed that associative memory for the translation was greater when (financial) reward was more unexpected and lesser when an expected reward was not received (i.e., signed PE); an effect that they replicated in several subsequent studies. However, other work on PE in declarative memory has assumed that memory is greater when an outcome is more unexpected, without any explicit reward (i.e., unsigned PE). We replicated De Loof et al.'s paradigm with and without financial reward, and found that memory was explained slightly better by unsigned PE (Experiments 1A-1B). However, we also identified a potential confound in the paradigm that could explain the results without any role of PE, as confirmed by simulations. We therefore designed a modified version of the paradigm that circumvents this confound (Experiment 2). Results were inconsistent with the PE account. We conclude that variable choice paradigms may not be well-suited to investigate the role of PE in one-shot declarative learning, and that the purported role of signed PE in declarative memory requires further investigation.
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.