ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Visual recognition memory does not benefit from preserved temporal order from encoding to test.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
Abstract
Research suggests that items from similar spatiotemporal contexts are more likely to be retrieved together. Here, we sought to test whether preserving temporal order from encoding to test might lead to a retrieval benefit. Then, we tested the participants using test items that were either presented in the same order as during encoding, or the order of items was different due to it being randomized. Across two experiments, we found that maintaining the same temporal order did not improve overall memory performance in the visual old/new recognition task we used. Next, we show that conditional-response probability plots demonstrate temporal grouping from the study order, but the strength of that grouping was unmodulated by whether the same order or a random order was used during recognition testing. Lastly, we used a two-alternative forced-choice task and again found that presenting old items in their original order, without intervening new items, did not enhance recognition memory performance. Thus, we find that for visually presented common objects tested with recognition, we do not see that the same order boosts participants' ability to retrieve a sequence of visual objects from memory.
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.