Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42876589›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cognition2026

Retrieval tasks differentially influence memory for object features.

Katherine Archer, Kimele Persaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katherine ArcherDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, United States.
Kimele PersaudDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual memory for objects and their constituent features (e.g., size, color, and state) is highly malleable and heavily influenced by encoding contexts and specific task-based characteristics. Yet, how object-feature memory is influenced by different retrieval tasks is not well understood. In this study, we examined whether variations in retrieval tasks that have been previously used in the literature (paired AFCs vs. 2-AFC) could produce different patterns of memory responses, that could then lead to different interpretations of the underlying memory representations. Specifically, participants studied and were asked to identify which object-feature combination they had previously seen. The results revealed that response patterns differed based on retrieval tasks, whereby the paired-AFC condition produced more accurate object-feature responses, while the 2-AFC produced more single-exemplar responses. Taken together, these results suggest that the nature of retrieval tasks can influence the kinds of elicited responses, leading to variation in interpretations across studies. Investigating how retrieval context shapes object-feature recognition provides important insight into malleability of visual object-feature representations in memory.

Indexed as

long-term memoryobject-feature representationsrecognition memoryretrieval effectsvisual memory

Identifiers

PMID42876589
PMCPMC13661476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.