ArticleMemory & cognition2026
The impact of preference for interior space design on incidental recognition 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
The extent to which preference shapes memory formation remains debated. Across three experiments, we tested whether preference for images of interior design predicts incidental recognition memory performance, while accounting for individual differences. Stimuli systematically varied in ceiling height, spatial openness, and curvature, design features known to influence preference. In Experiments 1 and 2 (online and laboratory), participants completed preference ratings followed by immediate recognition memory tasks, with individual differences measured via Desire for Aesthetics, Openness to Experience, and Extraversion. While participants reliably preferred rectilinear spaces, these preferences did not enhance immediate recognition memory, likely reflecting a near-ceiling effect in their performance. Experiment 3 addressed this limitation by increasing the number of stimuli, introducing a filler task, and implementing an 8-day delay interval. Here, higher preference and greater distinctiveness significantly predicted recognition memory accuracy, with a marginal moderation such that preference effects were weaker for low ceilings and closed spaces. Together, these findings suggest that preference enhances long-term, but not short-term, recognition memory, and that this effect is modulated by design features and stimulus distinctiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42218353What 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.