ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
When knowledge interferes with perception: Neural mechanisms of the semantic amplification of visual false memory.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
Visual false memory refers to our tendency to falsely recognize novel stimuli that are visually similar to seen stimuli. Visual false memory also occurs when stimuli are meaningful, suggesting that semantic information interferes with the encoding of visual details. However, the neural mechanisms of this semantic interference effect are largely unknown. In the present fMRI study, participants were scanned while encoding visually similar fonts presented with words (word-fonts) or pseudowords (pseudoword-fonts), and later, when recognizing old, new similar (lures), and new dissimilar (novel) fonts displayed in the same meaningless letter string. We performed (1) representational similarity analysis (RSA) at encoding to identify visual, visuosemantic, and semantic representations associated with subsequent visual true and false font recognition, (2) encoding-retrieval similarity (ERS) analysis to assess their reinstatement during retrieval, and (3) mediational analyses to examine hippocampal contributions. The study yielded three main findings. First, visuosemantic representations supported true font recognition when stored in right fusiform gyrus, but false recognition of word-fonts when stored in the left fusiform gyrus. Second, mirroring this pattern, reinstatement in right fusiform gyrus was associated with true font recognition, whereas reinstatement in left fusiform gyrus was linked to false recognition of word-fonts. Finally, posterior hippocampal activation reduced false font memory mainly for pseudoword-associated fonts via decreased reinstatement in perceptual regions, while anterior hippocampal activity increased false memory of word-fonts via enhanced reinstatement in semantic regions. Taken together, these findings reveal how distinct hippocampal-cortical pathways differentially bias memory towards perceptual specificity or semantic generalization.
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.