ArticleJournal of cognition2026
Negative Feedback Does Not Reverse Observationally Acquired Binding and Retrieval Effects: A Failed Replication.
Article in Journal of 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study, we ran a replication of the experiment by Giesen et al. (2017) who found reversed observationally acquired stimulus-response binding and retrieval (oSRBR) effects after negative feedback and standard oSRBR effects after positive feedback. This suggests that feedback was used to infer action goals from observed actions, implying that oSRBR effects represent propositional information. However, their findings stand in contrast to recent studies on the influence of affective consequences like feedback on SR bindings stemming from self-performed actions. These studies consistently demonstrate that SR binding and retrieval effects emerge independently of feedback. This raises the question whether the findings by Giesen et al. (2017) reflect an alpha error. In our replication, we found no evidence for a modulatory influence of feedback on oSRBR effects. A meta-analysis with the data from Giesen et al. (2017) and our experiment revealed no significant modulatory effect of vicarious feedback on retrieval of observationally acquired SR bindings. In concert with recent literature, this implies that feedback information was not used to infer action goals, providing no evidence that oSRBR effects represent propositional information.
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.