ArticleJournal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice2026
Unexpected Events Resist Directed Forgetting.
Article in Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice, 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
This study examined whether expectation violations modulate the effectiveness of directed forgetting (DF) and whether this interaction varies with emotional valence. We hypothesised that unexpectedness may confer mnemonic resilience, protecting from later forgetting. Participants first learned symbol-stimulus contingencies (rule learning), followed by an encoding phase with new emotional and neutral stimuli that were either expected or violated the learned rule. Each stimulus was accompanied by a "remember" or "forget" cue, and a subsequent recognition test assessed memory performance for expected and unexpected items under both DF conditions. Unexpected stimuli were remembered better than expected ones, particularly through recollection, and this advantage persisted even under forget instructions, indicating resistance to DF. Forget cues reduced recollection overall, but this reduction was markedly stronger for expected than for unexpected items. Emotional valence partly moderated these effects with the expectation advantage for recollection being evident for negative and neutral stimuli but not for positive ones. Nevertheless, the weakening of the DF effect for unexpected stimuli occurred irrespective of emotional valence. These findings demonstrate that prediction error enhances memory formation and diminishes the efficacy of intentional forgetting, particularly for associatively richer, recollection-based memories. The results support a view of DF as a dynamic process constrained by encoding factors such as surprise and emotional salience, with implications for theories of memory control and applications in education and memory training.
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.