The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 79 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Neural mechanisms of reactivation-induced updating that enhance and distort memory
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Reactivation is a key process that updates memory by strengthening existing memories and incorporating relevant new information, thus supporting the dynamic and flexible nature of memory. This adaptive function, however, can sometimes contribute to memory distortions. The current study examines how neural mechanisms that operate during reactivation of memories for a museum tour contribute to enhancement of existing memories, while also supporting integration of novel information that can contribute to false memories. Our results reveal similarities and differences in the neural mechanisms of reactivation associated with subsequent true and false memories for real-world events, thereby illuminating how memories change over time as a consequence of reactivation—a process that has important implications for understanding the unreliability of eyewitness memories.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Memory reactivation during fMRI both strengthened later true memories for a museum tour and increased later false memories for novel lure photographs from an alternate tour. The quality of reactivation, indexed by subjective reliving, modulated subsequent true and false memories via partly shared and partly distinct neural recruitment.
Key findings
- Reactivation increased subsequent hits [t(32) = 6.05, P < 0.0001] and subsequent false alarms [t(32) = 6.67, P < 0.0001] compared with baseline items not shown during scanning.
- Higher reliving ratings predicted subsequent hits versus misses [t(32) = 13.68, P < 0.0001] and subsequent false alarms versus correct rejections [t(32) = 3.96, P = 0.0003]; trial-by-trial correlations were r = 0.34, P < 0.0001 for true memories and r = 0.09, P = 0.0004 for false memories.
- Subsequent true and false memory effects both recruited left posterior parahippocampal, bilateral retrosplenial, and bilateral posterior inferior parietal cortices. For true memories, these regions showed greater recruitment during target than lure phases; for false memories, recruitment was equal across target and lure phases.
- Subsequent hits were associated with greater rostral medial PFC and posterior cingulate recruitment during target versus lure phases for highly relived memories, whereas subsequent false alarms were associated with greater vmPFC, ventrolateral PFC, lateral temporal cortex, and right anterior hippocampus recruitment during target versus lure phases.
Methods
- Thirty-five participants (18–30 y old, 19 women) completed three sessions separated by 48 h: a self-guided museum tour with a camera taking photographs every 15 s, an fMRI scanning session, and a recognition-memory test. Two participants were excluded for computer issues, and seven additional participants were excluded from fMRI analysis only for quality-control issues.
- During scanning, participants viewed target photographs from their own tour to reactivate memories, rated reliving, and on full trials then viewed a novel lure photograph from an alternate tour and rated relatedness. Later, they made old/new recognition judgments for reactivated targets and lures and baseline targets and lures.
- fMRI data were acquired on a 3T scanner and analyzed in SPM8 using a general linear model, a compound-trial approach to separate target and lure phases, subsequent memory contrasts (hits minus misses; false alarms minus correct rejections), and parametric modulation by reliving ratings. Reported analyses used a threshold of P < 0.001, uncorrected, with a cluster size of 10 voxels.
Limitations
- The paper states that reactivation quality was defined according to subjective recollection, so the findings could also reflect the contribution of memory strength during reactivation.
- The paper states that it remains an open question whether all varieties of memory distortion can be conceived as costs associated with adaptive features of memory.
- Evident from the text: fMRI results are reported at an uncorrected threshold of P < 0.001 with a 10-voxel cluster cutoff, and the final fMRI sample was reduced by exclusions, which may limit statistical robustness.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
34 Not checked yet · 31 Own result · 11 Own interpretation · 10 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants made higher reliving ratings for photographs associated with subsequent hits versus subsequent misses [t(32) = 13.68, P < 0.0001] and with subsequent false alarms versus subsequent correct rejections [t(32) = 3.96, P = 0.0003].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reactivation condition equally increased subsequent hits [t(32) = 6.05, P < 0.0001] and subsequent false alarms [t(32) = 6.67, P < 0.0001] compared with the baseline condition consisting of target and lure photographs that were not shown during session 2 (i.e., items that were not scanned; Fig. 1B).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reactivation condition equally increased subsequent hits [t(32) = 6.05, P < 0.0001] and subsequent false alarms [t(32) = 6.67, P < 0.0001] compared with the baseline condition consisting of target and lure photographs that were not shown during session 2 (i.e., items that were not scanned; Fig. 1B).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants made higher reliving ratings for photographs associated with subsequent hits versus subsequent misses [t(32) = 13.68, P < 0.0001] and with subsequent false alarms versus subsequent correct rejections [t(32) = 3.96, P = 0.0003].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, subsequent false alarms were associated with greater recruitment of vmPFC, ventrolateral PFC, lateral temporal cortex, and right anterior hippocampus during target compared with lure phases for highly relived memories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction was reflected by greater recruitment during target than during lure phases for subsequent true memories but equal recruitment of these regions across both trial phases for subsequent false memories.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the influence of reliving on subsequent memory remained after controlling for how quickly the memory was retrieved and the relatedness of novel information (SI Results).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction was reflected by greater recruitment during target than during lure phases for subsequent true memories but equal recruitment of these regions across both trial phases for subsequent false memories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with this prediction, there was no overlap in neural recruitment for subsequent memory effects between the reactivation condition and the novel encoding condition (Table S3).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was a significant within-participant correlation between reliving ratings and subsequent true memories (r = 0.34, P < 0.0001) and between reliving ratings and subsequent false memories (r = 0.09, P = 0.0004).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, recruitment of each of these regions was not associated with reaction time or the relatedness of novel information (Fig. S1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was an overall main effect of trial phase reflecting greater neural recruitment of brain regions sensitive to reliving during the target versus lure trial phases.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For false memories, sustained involvement of the posterior parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and posterior inferior cortices across memory reactivation and the presentation of novel information was associated with whether the lure photograph would be incorporated into later memories for the museum tour.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequent hits were associated with greater recruitment of the rostral medial PFC and posterior cingulate during target compared with lure phases for highly relived memories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a significant interaction between trial phase (target photograph, lure photograph) and subsequent memory (true, false) in the recruitment of the posterior parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and posterior inferior parietal cortices (Fig. 2B and Table S2).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subsequent memory analysis revealed that both subsequent true-memory and subsequent false-memory effects were associated with recruitment of left posterior parahippocampal, bilateral retrosplenial, and bilateral posterior inferior parietal cortices (Fig. 2A and Table S1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, subsequent true and false memory effects were associated with common neural recruitment of posterior parahippocampus, retrosplenial cortex, and posterior inferior parietal cortex during memory reactivation.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was a significant within-participant correlation between reliving ratings and subsequent true memories (r = 0.34, P < 0.0001) and between reliving ratings and subsequent false memories (r = 0.09, P = 0.0004).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“During the presentation of the target photograph compared with the lure photograph, reliving was associated with a number of regions typically recruited during autobiographical memory retrieval (43), including anterior and posterior hippocampus, left ventrolateral PFC, rostral medial and vmPFC, posterior cingulate, posterior inferior parietal cortex, and lateral temporal cortex (Fig. S3).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant trial phase × memory condition interaction on the neural mechanisms associated with the quality of reactivation, however, revealed that the way the memory was reactivated was associated with different outcomes in subsequent memory (Fig. 3).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, for true memories, reduced recruitment of these same brain regions during presentation of the lure was associated with accurate subsequent memories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, neural recruitment that increased according to the quality of reactivation differed depending on the outcome of memory.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that anterior hippocampus was sensitive to relatedness ratings more for false alarms than hits during presentation of the target (Table S5).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Memory updating was associated with the recruitment of a subset of retrieval-related regions that were sensitive to the quality of reactivation.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequent hits were associated with greater activity in posterior cingulate cortex and rostral medial PFC; in contrast, false alarms were associated with greater activity in vmPFC and anterior hippocampus.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was little overlap in neural recruitment supporting subsequent memory effects during reactivation compared with novel encoding.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neural recruitment sensitive to reactivation quality differed depending upon the outcome of subsequent memory.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In line with this idea, subsequent memory effects were associated with recruitment of posterior parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and posterior inferior parietal cortices, which contribute to the recovery of spatial context and scene construction (70, 71).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our finding that subsequent false alarms were associated with greater involvement of anterior hippocampus and vmPFC builds upon accumulating evidence linking these regions to flexible memory processes that enable memories to be combined and used in novel ways.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequent hits were associated with greater activity in posterior cingulate cortex and rostral medial PFC; in contrast, false alarms were associated with greater activity in vmPFC and anterior hippocampus.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the neural mechanisms of reactivation-related updating differed depending on whether memory was updated to include novel information presented later in the trial or whether it was protected from such distortions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the quality of reactivation during session 2 uniquely influenced the outcome of both subsequent true and subsequent false memories, such that on a trial-by-trial basis, stronger reliving improved memory for the targets and increased memory for the lures that followed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Subjective reliving ratings provide a valid index of the quality of memory reactivation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the recruitment of left posterior parahippocampal, bilateral retrosplenial, and bilateral posterior inferior parietal cortices during memory retrieval supports reactivation-related updating that impacts subsequent remembering.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, true and false subsequent memories were distinguished by neural mechanisms recruited when processing the lure photograph.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One way that reactivation may support memory updating is via contextual reinstatement, by linking novel information that occurs during retrieval with the reinstated context of the reactivated memory (47, 49).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Contextual reinstatement could underlie the link between the quality of reactivation and subsequent memory effects (42).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The current study reveals neural mechanisms that support the formation of false memories for naturalistic events experienced in a real-world setting, which has important implications for eyewitness memory and the law (92, 93).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The memory distortion effects we observed here in some ways resemble those that occur in the postevent misinformation paradigm (2), in which erroneous information presented after encoding contributes to later false memories because of source-memory confusion.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research in psychology and neuroscience supports the idea that memory is not an exact reproduction of past experiences, but is instead a constructive process subject to a variety of errors and distortions (1–8).”
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“however, subsequent false memories were also greater for lures that followed targets that were highly reactivated.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recruitment of parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and posterior inferior parietal cortices during encoding of items that are contextually related (e.g., bed, dresser, etc.) is associated with subsequent false recognition of novel related items (e.g., alarm clock) (48),”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Neural regions associated with recollection and memory-updating processes are typically recruited more during autobiographical memory compared with laboratory-based memory retrieval (43, 61, 62),”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We found that subsequent true memories were improved when targets were highly reactivated (i.e., the retrieval cues during reactivation matched the encoding experience) compared with memories that were reactivated at lower levels (i.e., the retrieval cues during reactivation mismatched encoding);”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a previous behavioral study, we showed that the quality of memory reactivation, as indexed by an individual’s subjective sense of recollection, modulates the extent to which reactivation strengthens subsequent true memories for a recently presented target event or creates false memories of novel information encountered for the first time after the target event has already occurred (42).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and contextual reinstatement of scene-related activity in the posterior parahippocampal cortex underlies subsequent misattributions in memory (49).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In particular, hippocampus, parahippocampal cortex, retrosplenial cortex, and lateral posterior parietal cortex are associated with recollection processes during retrieval that contribute to the quality of memory reactivation (46).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Indeed, many of these retrieval-related brain regions are deactivated compared with baseline during novel encoding tasks (69), suggesting less contribution from the typical subsequent memory regions during memory updating.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our results are consistent with the view that reactivation-related false memories reflect one downside to the generally beneficial process of memory updating.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In particular, the anterior portion of the hippocampus is associated with relational processes (77–79) that contribute to the ability to integrate memory details across experiences (80).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results showed that stronger reliving of the target improved memory for the target, but also increased memory for the lure that followed (Fig. 1C).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that recruitment of the posterior parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and posterior inferior parietal cortices increased on a trial-by-trial basis with increases in reliving, and thus were associated with the quality of reactivation (Fig. 2C).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equal neural recruitment in these regions during target and lure presentation supported the incorporation of novel information that contributed to false memories, whereas reduced recruitment during lure presentation was associated with true memories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In line with this idea, we found a significant association between reliving and relatedness ratings, and that this association contributed more to false than true memories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, posterior hippocampus contributed equally to subsequent hits and false alarms, consistent with its role in representing detailed contextual information that more generally supports recollection (59).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Compared with subsequent false alarms, we found that subsequent hits were associated with posterior cingulate cortex and rostral medial PFC, which are core midline regions of the default network (74) that support self-referential processes (82, 83) and successful encoding of self-relevant information (84–86).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One explanation is that target reactivation and related pattern completion processes may linger during the processing of the lure and affect the degree of relatedness of the lures (81), thus contributing to false memories.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Here we defined reactivation quality according to subjective recollection, and thus, our findings could also reflect the contribution of memory strength during reactivation (68).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [68]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Subjective reliving ratings provide a valid index of the quality of memory reactivation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results converge with these findings, but extend this work by demonstrating that the quality of reactivation is a key mechanism and also by showing that these processes support the formation of false memories.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study significantly extends this work by demonstrating that reactivation can both protect true memories and support the incorporation of new information leading to false memories, depending upon neural recruitment during reactivation.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This restructuring of memories could facilitate re-encoding and reconsolidation processes that contribute to updating of long-term memory representations.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Contextual reinstatement may strengthen existing memory and/or integrate existing memory with novel information provided by the retrieval cues, in much the same way that retrieval practice is thought to support memory via elaboration of the memory trace (73).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our data show that the quality of reactivation is one mechanism by which retrieval influences memory, and we suggest a link between contextual reinstatement via neural recruitment of the posterior parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and posterior inferior parietal cortices in the enhancement and distortion in later memory.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Subjective reliving ratings provide a valid index of the quality of memory reactivation.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our findings also fit with an adaptive perspective on memory distortion (6, 20–23), in which reactivation allows for the incorporation of relevant new information that is essential for the operation of a dynamic memory system, but which comes at the cost of memory distortions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6]
- Not checked yetcites [20]
- Not checked yetcites [21]
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
- Not checked yetcites [23]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results converge with these findings, but further indicate that neural recruitment that differentiates subsequent true and false memories during presentation of novel information depends on the extent to which memory for the original experience is reactivated rather than source confusion between the presence or absence of a lure.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, here we show that the quality of reactivation modulates both the extent of subsequent memory effects, and the neural recruitment associated with these memory effects.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Subjective reliving ratings provide a valid index of the quality of memory reactivation.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that reactivation may enhance true memories by elaborating upon memory details related to oneself (87), but increase false memories via binding of novel information.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [87]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both in the laboratory and everyday life, much evidence shows that people sometimes remember events differently from the way they actually unfolded and under some conditions remember events that never happened (9–12).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9]
- Not checked yetcites [10] source
- Not checked yetcites [11]
- Not checked yetcites [12]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Updating relies on the process of memory reactivation, or the activation of a latent memory trace when we are reminded of a past experience, which is a key process that shapes long-term memory representations by reorganizing them over distributed brain networks (39–41).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A third kind of evidence for adaptive-memory distortion comes from the well-known postevent misinformation effect, where people incorporate erroneous information encountered after an original event into their memory of the original event (2).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2]
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This research is supported by studies showing that the hippocampus and vmPFC enable rapid consolidation of novel information when it can be linked to existing memory representations (60).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A related line of research suggests that the hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) support flexible memory processes that allow memories to be combined and used in novel ways, and that contribute to memory updating.”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the nature of awake reactivation, with some studies showing that reactivation enhances or even protects memory from new information (54, 64, 65) and other studies indicating that reactivation incorporates new information into memory (49, 65–67).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Retrosplenial cortex is thought to support integration and translation between egocentric spatial representations in posterior parietal cortex and allocentric spatial representations in the MTL (71), and these processes are recruited to a greater extent when spatial context needs to be updated and manipulated (72).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hippocampus and vmPFC are part of a MTL subsystem of the default network (74) that supports the formation of mental models based on mnemonic content during both memory retrieval and the simulation and encoding of future events (36, 75, 76).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Memory reactivation is a central component of computational theories of memory (40), which hold that it supports the stabilization of memory over distributed brain networks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The museum paradigm allowed us to exert control over the encoding of real-world events and to verify the accuracy of memories for subsequent memory analysis.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, the anterior hippocampus represents global context through its connections with vmPFC and related schematic processes that could support the incorporation of novel information (59).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seven additional participants were excluded from the fMRI analysis only because of quality control issues (SI Materials and Methods).”
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“During encoding of misinformation, some studies have shown recruitment of anterior and posterior midline regions that protect true memories (51), and hippocampal recruitment that supports the formation of false memories (52).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51]
- Not checked yetcites [52]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A threshold of P < 0.001, uncorrected, with a cluster size of 10 voxels was used for all reported analyses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two participants were excluded due to computer issues.”
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The order of reactivation and encoding conditions was counterbalanced between participants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A minimum of eight trials per trial type was used as a cutoff for inclusion in the analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cushions were used to minimize head movement”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were two versions of the tour, which were counterbalanced between participants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Photographs from each participant’s camera were inspected to ensure that the participant adhered to the instructions, and if the camera captured a photograph of a unique museum stop from the alternate tour, it was excluded from further analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They were not told whether the lure photographs were from the tour or not.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Subjective reliving ratings provide a valid index of the quality of memory reactivation.
“Here we defined reactivation quality according to subjective recollection, and thus, our findings could also reflect the contribution of memory strength during reactivation (68).”
“using the reliving rating, our putative marker of the quality of reactivation”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Most prior laboratory-based EM studies used cue words or images to trigger memory retrieval and mental time travel to the past in a controlled fashion [5,6,12,31,60,80,87,103–105].”
From First-person view of one’s body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory (2019) · cites this paper as [31]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(32) = 3.96, P = 0.0003”
Reported p = .0003 · recomputed p < .001
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upt(32) = 3.96reported p = .0003 · recomputed p < .001
“t(32) = 3.96, p = .0003”
- Consistentt(32) = 6.05reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(32) = 6.05, p < .0001”
- Consistentt(32) = 6.67reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(32) = 6.67, p < .0001”
- Consistentt(32) = 13.68reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(32) = 13.68, p < .0001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.419 · Cited by 5,256
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation
(2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(21)x0002-3 · Cited by 5,082
Episodic memory: from mind to brain
Tulving, E. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114 · Cited by 4,950
Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803 · Cited by 3,792
Functional-anatomic fractionation of the brain’s default network
Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Reidler, J. S., Sepulcre, J., Poulin, R., & Buckner, R. L. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005 · Cited by 2,767
Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004 · Cited by 2,691
The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans?
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x07001975 · Cited by 2,031
The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2087 · Cited by 1,836
Self-citationThe critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 · Cited by 1,796 · cited 1×
“Contextual reinstatement may strengthen existing memory and/ or integrate existing memory with novel information provided by the retrieval cues, in much the same way that retrieval practice is thought to support memory via elaboration of the memory trace (73).”
BackgroundCoordinated memory replay in the visual cortex and hippocampus during sleep
Ji, D., & Wilson, M. A. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1825 · Cited by 1,669
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- FC Bartlett Remembering (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 1932).
- E Loftus Eyewitness Testimony (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, 1979).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Memory integration: neural mechanisms and implications for behavior
Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2014) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.07.005 · Cited by 442
Real-Life Neuroscience: An Ecological Approach to Brain and Behavior Research
Shamay‐Tsoory, S., & Mendelsohn, A. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619856350 · Cited by 319
Resilience after trauma: The role of memory suppression
Mary, A., Dayan, J., Leone, G., Postel, C., Fraisse, F., Malle, C., Vallée, T., Klein-Peschanski, C., Viader, F., Sayette, V. D. L., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aay8477 · Cited by 272
Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2015) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2015.11.005 · Cited by 164
Retrieval potentiates new learning: A theoretical and meta-analytic review.
Chan, J. C. K., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000166 · Cited by 143
Metadata
- Authors
- St. Jacques, P. L., Olm, C., & Schacter, D. L.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology and
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-11-04
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 49
- Pages
- 19671-19678
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC3856820
- OpenAlex
- W2045390639
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 3.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (AG038079, F32AG038079)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH 060941, R01MH060941)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- memory reactivation, false memory, memory distortion, retrosplenial cortex, subsequent memory, event memory
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Memory Disorders, Photic Stimulation, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Recognition, Psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
