ArticleFrontiers in cognition2025
The need for details for object discrimination and mnemonic discrimination.
Article in Frontiers in cognition, 2025. 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
Both mnemonic discrimination and object recognition tasks rely on the utilization of subtle visual details. Successful mnemonic discrimination utilizes the subtle details of an event to orthogonalize highly similar episodic memories, whereas object discrimination is a memory-free skill that utilizes details in order to distinguish between similar stimuli simultaneously presented. Additionally, neuroimaging studies have implicated areas of the medial temporal lobe as important for both mnemonic discrimination and object discrimination, further suggesting that performance on these two tasks are related. However, relatively limited data assessing the relationship between these two processes exist in the literature. Seventy-one cognitively normal participants completed both the Mnemonic Similarity Task (MST) and an object discrimination task used previously by our lab. The MST displayed common objects on a white background and participants identified if the object presented was old, similar, or new compared to objects previously seen in the task. For the object discrimination task, participants were shown a pair of stimuli (blobs or squares) that varied in difficulty (hard or easy). Outcome measures included correct responses to similar objects on the MST (mnemonic discrimination) and proportion of correct matches for hard and easy blobs and squares (object discrimination). Mnemonic discrimination for similar objects were correlated only with hard blobs after correcting for age, sex, and performance on easy trials (
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.