Neural Mechanisms of Episodic Retrieval Support Divergent Creative Thinking

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

During the past decade, episodic memory and its neural processes have been found to be engaged during tasks beyond simple remembering, such as future thinking or simulation, decision making, and problem solving.

“Strikingly, during the past decade, episodic memory, and the neural processes that support it, have been found to be engaged during tasks beyond simple remembering that may also involve the retrieval and reconstruction of episodic details for completion, such as future thinking or simulation, decision making, and problem solving (for review, see Schacter et al. 2012;Moscovitch et al. 2016;Schacter”

• cites Schacter et al. 2012 sourceSupported
• cites Moscovitch et al. 2016 sourceSupported
• cites Schacter et al. 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The specificity and episodic detail of imagined future events correlate with divergent thinking.

“the specificity (Ononye et al. 1993) and episodic detail (Addis et al. 2016) of imagined future events correlate with divergent thinking.”

• cites Ononye et al. 1993 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Addis et al. 2016 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Episodic memory processes have typically been characterized as not very relevant for, or even a hindrance to, creative output.

“such processes have typically been characterized as not very relevant for, or even a hindrance to, creative output.”

• cites Gilhooly et al. 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Runco and Acar 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Fink et al. 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion (page not provided) says retrieving known ideas can be ineffective for generating highly creative ideas, which supports a narrower version of the hindrance claim. It does not say episodic memory processes have typically been characterized that way; instead, it describes constructing novel representations from episodic memory as part of effective creative idea generation. (LLM, conf=0.79)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Prior research has indicated that brain regions and networks supporting semantic memory, top-down and bottom-up attention, and cognitive control are involved in divergent creative thinking.

“Prior research has indicated that brain regions and networks that support semantic memory, top-down and bottom-up attention, and cognitive control are all involved in divergent creative thinking.”

• cites Fink et al. 2009 sourcePartly supported

  The Interim discussion links creative idea generation to semantic selection, and the General discussion links it to working memory and inhibitory top-down control. But the Introduction says generating original ideas requires a state not driven by external bottom-up stimulation; the paper does not support the claim that bottom-up attention is also involved. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Chrysikou and Thompson-Schill 2011 sourcePartly supported

  The Results and Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) link creative uncommon-use generation to posterior regions, distributed object representations, and perceptually driven attention. But the Discussion associates prefrontal filtering and cognitive control primarily with common-use retrieval, and suggests that such filtering can be counterproductive for generating uncommon uses. The source therefore does not support the claim that all the listed systems are involved in divergent creative thinking. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Mayseless et al. 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

ESI, compared with various control inductions that do not target episodic retrieval, improves subsequent performance on tasks that involve the retrieval and reconstruction of episodic details, such as episodic remembering and imagining, means-end problem solving, and divergent thinking.

“To this end, previous behavioral work has indicated that ESI, compared with various control inductions that do not target episodic retrieval, improves subsequent performance on tasks that involve the retrieval and reconstruction of episodic details, such as episodic remembering and imagining (Madore et al. 2014), means-end problem solving (Madore and Schacter 2014) and divergent thinking (Madore”

• cites Madore et al. 2014Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Madore and Schacter 2014Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Madore et al. 2015 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Episodic details from past versus future events do not correlate strongly with divergent thinking.

“and that episodic details from past (vs.future) events do not correlate strongly with divergent thinking (Addis et al. 2016).”

• cites Addis et al. 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The Results section reports significant correlations between all five divergent-thinking measures and detail in imagined future events, but only one significant correlation for imagined past events. It also reports that the past–future difference was not statistically significant, so the source does not establish a strong contrast between them. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Parameters for main task trial number, length, and idea response mode were derived from AUT fMRI studies and previous induction fMRI study to ensure a methodologically sound paradigm.

“To ensure a methodologically sound paradigm, we derived our parameters for main task trial number, length, and idea response mode from AUT fMRI studies (e.g., Fink et al. 2015 for trial number; Sun et al. 2016 for trial length; Abraham et al. 2012 for response mode) and from our previous induction fMRI study (Madore et al. 2016b).”

• cites Fink et al. 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Sun et al. 2016 sourceSupported
• cites Abraham et al. 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

With respect to divergent thinking, ESI increases the production of both old ideas from memory and new ideas from imagination generated for the first time during study.

“With respect to divergent thinking, ESI increases the production of both old ideas from memory (e.g., novel uses of an object based on remembering a past experience involving that use) and new ideas from imagination generated for the first time during study”

• cites Madore et al. 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The General Discussion reports preliminary data suggesting that ESI may boost both “old” and “new” ideas. The citing sentence presents that tentative finding as an established increase, although the paper says it requires more systematic investigation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Madore et al. 2016aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Some researchers have suggested that episodic retrieval is not very relevant for, and may even be a hindrance to, creative output.

“Third, researchers have tended to downplay the role of episodic memory in divergent thinking and some have suggested that episodic retrieval is not very relevant for, and may even be a hindrance to, creative output (Gilhooly et al. 2007;Runco and Acar 2010;Fink et al. 2015).”

• cites Gilhooly et al. 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Runco and Acar 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Fink et al. 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion says that retrieving unusual but already-known ideas is a less effective strategy for generating highly creative ideas. That supports the narrower point about relying on old ideas, but not the claim that episodic retrieval generally hinders creativity: the Discussion also describes effective creative generation as constructing novel representations from available episodic memory. Our copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Both the AUT and OAT involve assembling, integrating, and generating information in response to an object cue, but the AUT involves divergent thinking and episodic imagery.

“Both the AUT and OAT involve assembling, integrating, and generating information in response to an object cue, but the AUT involves divergent thinking and episodic imagery (Madore et al. 2015(Madore et al. , 2016a;;Addis et al. 2016).”

• cites Madore et al. 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Madore et al. 2016aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Addis et al. 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The Materials and Methods section (page unavailable) describes the AUT as generating multiple uses for an object, scored for divergent thinking. The paper also links AUT performance to detail in imagined episodes, but it does not establish that the AUT itself involves episodic imagery. Our copy does not describe the OAT or compare its processes with those of the AUT. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Cluster-extent thresholding with Monte Carlo simulations (10,000 iterations) and estimated spatial autocorrelation values of 7.06-7.47 was used to yield a significance threshold of P < 0.05 corrected for multiple voxel-wise comparisons.

“We ran Monte Carlo simulations with 10 000 iterations with estimated spatial autocorrelation values of 7.06-7.47 to yield parameters with a significance threshold of P < 0.05 corrected for multiple voxel-wise comparisons (Slotnick et al. 2003; see Thakral et al. 2017 for a recent example of this approach).”

• cites Slotnick et al. 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Thakral et al. 2017 sourceSupported

The quote only partly states this claim.

An independent component representing the core network and an independent component representing the frontoparietal control network exhibited significantly stronger between-network coupling during the AUT > OAT following ESI > control induction.

“An independent component where the spatiotemporal map represented the core network (including bilateral parahippocampal gyrus, angular gyrus, medial prefrontal cortex, precuneus, and retrosplenial cortex/posterior cingulate; Benoit and Schacter 2015), and an independent component where the spatiotemporal map represented the frontoparietal control network (including bilateral lateral prefrontal”

• cites Benoit and Schacter 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Vincent et al. 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Two raters blind to induction independently inspected the spatial patterns and timecourses of the 26 extracted components and determined that 24 were nonartifactual, with 100% inter-rater agreement.

“Two raters blind to induction visually inspected the spatial patterns and timecourses of the 26 extracted components independently (see Kelly et al. 2010) and determined that 24 of the 26 components were nonartifactual (inter-rater agreement was 100% on which components were nonartifact and artifact).”

• cites Kelly et al. 2010 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The entire 20 s duration of each trial was modeled because previous creativity fMRI studies have used this approach consistently with similar trial lengths.

“The entire 20 s duration of each trial was modeled because previous creativity fMRI studies have used this approach consistently with similar trial lengths (cf.Fink et al. 2009Fink et al. , 2010Fink et al. , 2012Fink et al. , 2015;;Sun et al. 2016).”

• cites Fink et al. 2009 sourcePartly supported

  The Apparatus/EEG recording section (p. 738) describes a 20-second idea-generation interval, and the Analysis of MRI data section (p. 739) says the fMRI model covered idea generation without the response period. This supports Fink et al. (2009) as a precedent for modeling a similarly timed interval, but its trials also included a 20-second fixation period and a response period. This source alone does not establish that previous studies used the approach consistently. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Fink et al. 2010 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sun et al. 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The fMRI task section describes 20-second task items, and the fMRI task analysis section says the task blocks were modeled with a general linear model. This supports Sun et al. as an example of a study using a similar trial length, but the paper does not establish that previous creativity fMRI studies consistently modeled the entire 20-second duration. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Contributions of episodic memory to tasks beyond simple remembering may be explained by an event construction account, and the patterns of data from the current study add novel support for this interpretation.

“We have recently suggested ( Schacter and Madore 2016; Madore et al. 2016b) that contributions of episodic memory to a variety of tasks beyond simple remembering, such as imagining the future, solving means-end problems, and thinking creatively, may be explained by an event construction account in particular, and we think that the patterns of data from the current study add novel support for this”

• cites Schacter and Madore 2016 sourceSupported
• cites Madore et al. 2016bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Previous AUT fMRI research has suggested that behavioral performance in the scanner correlates positively with output collection in a postscan interview.

“Previous AUT fMRI research (Abraham et al. 2012;Sun et al. 2016) has suggested that behavioral performance in the scanner correlates positively with output collection in a postscan interview”

• cites Abraham et al. 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sun et al. 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The fMRI task section reports that participants’ in-scanner responses were positively correlated with the number of ideas they provided after scanning (r = 0.81, P < 0.001). It says participants wrote down those ideas after scanning; it does not describe a postscan interview. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

To minimize false positives from cluster-extent thresholding, the analysis used a computational method that does not employ random-field theory, derived spatial autocorrelation values from group residual mean-square images, and used a conservative cluster-defining threshold (P < 0.001).

“To minimize false positives that can occur with cluster-extent thresholding in fMRI analyses (see Eklund et al. 2016; but also see Cox et al. 2017), we adopted a computational method that does not employ a random-field theory approach, derived our spatial autocorrelation values from the respective group residual mean-square images, and used a conservative cluster defining threshold (i.e., P < 0.00”

• cites Eklund et al. 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Cox et al. 2017 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

The ESI manipulation selectively affected divergent thinking performance in an fMRI setting but did not affect performance on an object control task.

“This pattern of induction-related findings replicates and extends behavioral studies of divergent thinking (Madore et al. 2015(Madore et al. , 2016a)), and indicates for the first time that the ESI manipulation selectively affected divergent thinking performance in an fMRI setting but did not affect performance on an object control task.”

• cites Madore et al. 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Madore et al. 2016aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

An experimental manipulation that facilitates detailed episodic retrieval and biases a specific retrieval orientation should facilitate performance on subsequent tasks that nominally involve episodic processing for completion, such as divergent thinking.

“we have previously hypothesized (Schacter and Madore 2016) that an experimental manipulation that facilitates detailed episodic retrieval and biases a specific retrieval orientation (Morcom and Rugg 2012) should likewise facilitate performance on subsequent tasks that nominally involve this sort of episodic processing for completion, in this case divergent thinking.”

• cites Schacter and Madore 2016 sourceSupported
• cites Morcom and Rugg 2012 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

An episodic retrieval manipulation increased not only the retrieval of old ideas but the production of new ideas that were not associated with any one particular past experience.

“That is, an episodic retrieval manipulation increased not only the retrieval of old ideas but the production of new ideas that were not associated with any one particular past experience, as in our previous induction-related behavioral work (Madore et al. 2015(Madore et al. , 2016a)).”

• cites Madore et al. 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The General Discussion (page not provided) says preliminary data suggest the induction may boost both “old” and “new” ideas. It also says the issue requires more systematic investigation; it does not establish that the new ideas were unrelated to any particular past experience. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Madore et al. 2016aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Neural effects of the episodic manipulation were consistent with behavioral effects of enhanced idea production on divergent thinking but not object association.

“Neural effects of the episodic manipulation were consistent with behavioral effects of enhanced idea production on divergent thinking but not object association.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Over 98% of uses across the sample were deemed appropriate by the raters.

“Over 98% of uses across the sample were deemed appropriate by the raters.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Task effects differed significantly as a function of induction, with significantly greater BOLD activity in left anterior hippocampus, left inferior (ventrolateral), middle (dorsolateral), and superior frontal gyri, and left precentral gyrus following ESI relative to control for the AUT > OAT contrast.

“Task effects differed significantly as a function of induction, in that participants exhibited significantly greater BOLD activity in left anterior hippocampus, left inferior (i.e., ventrolateral), middle (i.e., dorsolateral), and superior frontal gyri, and left precentral”

• Also stated in: § Discussion · plain

  “Critically, and as hypothesized, following ESI relative to the control induction, participants exhibited significantly greater BOLD activity in the hippocampus during divergent thinking but not an object association control task that involves semantic imagery and little divergent thinking”

May combine two claims.

Participants generated significantly more total uses that were appropriate and fit into distinct categories for AUT cues that had come after ESI compared with the control, but did not show significant induction-related differences in total objects generated for OAT cues (induction × task interactions Fs[1,31] > 5.91, Ps < 0.021, ηp2s > 0.16).

“participants generated significantly more total uses that were also deemed appropriate and as fitting into distinct categories for those AUT cues that had come after ESI compared with the control but did not show significant induction-related differences in total objects generated for OAT cues (induction × task interactions: Fs[1, 31] > 5.91, Ps < 0.021, η p 2 s > 0.16)”

The quote only partly states this claim.

Behavioral pilot testing on a separate batch of participants (n = 12) where button presses were provided before later verbal responses about the button presses replicated the pattern of positive correlation between scanner performance and postscan output.

“Behavioral pilot testing on a separate batch of participants (n = 12) where button presses were provided before later verbal responses about the button presses replicated this pattern.”

May combine two claims.

Participants produced multiple responses per task per induction, with a significantly greater number of responses for the OAT relative to the AUT (P < 0.001).

“Participants also produced multiple responses per task per induction; a significantly greater number of such responses was produced for the OAT relative to the AUT (P < 0.001), as in previous work using related control tasks”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Over 98% of responses across the sample were considered objects by the raters.

“Over 98% of responses across the sample were considered objects by the raters.”

May combine two claims.

Participants generated significantly more responses on the AUT following ESI than following the control induction in the scanner, and did not differ in the number of responses generated on the OAT as a function of induction (induction × task interaction F[1,31]=5.24, P=0.029, ηp2=0.15).

“participants generated significantly more responses on the AUT following ESI relative to the control induction in the scanner, and did not differ in the number of responses generated on the OAT as a function of induction (induction × task interaction: F[1, 31] = 5.24, P = 0.029, η p 2 = 0.15)”

May combine two claims.

There was significantly less output in the postscan interview for the AUT and OAT than button presses in the scanner (P < 0.001), and this did not vary significantly as a function of induction (P = 0.68).

“Relatedly, there was significantly less output in the postscan interview for the AUT and OAT than button presses in the scanner (P < 0.001), as in previous related fMRI work (Abraham et al. 2012), and this did not vary significantly as a function of induction (P = 0.68).”

• cites Abraham et al. 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The quote only partly states this claim.

Average elaboration and creativity ratings for total uses did not vary significantly as a function of induction (Ps > 0.76).

“Total uses were scored as”

May combine two claims.

Participants found generating AUT responses in the scanner to be somewhat difficult and OAT responses a little difficult, and the AUT was rated as significantly more difficult than the OAT (P < 0.001).

“Specifically, participants found generating AUT responses in the scanner to be somewhat difficult and OAT responses a little difficult; as in previous related work (Abraham et al. 2012), the AUT was rated as significantly more difficult than a related control task (P < 0.001).”

• cites Abraham et al. 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Ideas generated following ESI and the control induction were both rated as 'a little' to 'somewhat creative' by blind raters and as 'creative' by participants themselves.

“ideas generated following ESI and the control induction were both rated as”

May combine two claims.

Correlations between total output in the postscan interview for the AUT and OAT and total button presses in the scanner were significantly positive (r = 0.67, P < 0.001 for AUT and r = 0.63, P < 0.001 for OAT).

“Correlations between total output in the postscan interview for the AUT and OAT and total button presses in the scanner were also significantly positive (r = 0.67, P < 0.001 for AUT and r = 0.63, P < 0.001 for OAT).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Episodic memory is a neurocognitive system classically characterized as supporting the recollection of past experiences specific to a time and place.

“Episodic memory is a neurocognitive system that is classically characterized as supporting the recollection of past experiences specific to a time and place (Tulving 1983(Tulving , 2002)).”

• cites Tulving 1983Not checked — no full text of the source
• cites Tulving 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Particular episodic memories are drawn on infrequently during divergent thinking.

“Second, behavioral work has shown that particular episodic memories are drawn on infrequently during divergent thinking (Gilhooly et al. 2007)”

• cites Gilhooly et al. 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Neuroimaging work implicating the core network and medial temporal lobe subsystem in divergent thinking has not been linked specifically to behavioral indices of episodic retrieval.

“First, neuroimaging work that implicates the core network and medial temporal lobe subsystem in divergent thinking has not been linked specifically to behavioral indices of episodic retrieval.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Medial temporal lobe structures have been associated with both semantic and episodic memory.

“Moreover, medial temporal lobe structures have been associated with both semantic and episodic memory (Eichenbaum and Cohen 2001).”

• cites Eichenbaum and Cohen 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The impressions control did not facilitate detailed episodic retrieval and did not include mental imagery probes.

“This induction did not facilitate detailed episodic retrieval and did not include mental imagery probes.”

May combine two claims.

In previous work, the ESI has produced consistent increases in the episodic detail of remembered and imagined events as measured by the AI, as well as key generative measures of divergent creative thinking.

“In our previous work, the ESI has produced consistent increases in the episodic detail of remembered and imagined events as measured by the AI (Levine et al. 2002), as well as key generative measures of divergent creative thinking.”

• cites Levine et al. 2002 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Imagined events contained more episodic but not semantic details following ESI and were not rated as more similar to past experiences or thoughts than imagined events following a control induction.

“Imagined events contained more episodic-but not semantic-details following ESI and were not rated as more similar to past experiences or thoughts than imagined events following a control induction.”

• cites Madore et al. 2016bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

The biasing of a specific retrieval orientation via ESI should show differential effects on subsequent tasks where an episodic retrieval orientation is invoked relative to tasks where it is not.

“The biasing of a specific retrieval orientation via ESI should show differential effects on subsequent tasks where an episodic retrieval orientation is invoked relative to tasks where it is not.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The 72 cues did not differ significantly with respect to number of syllables or words per cue.

“The cues were divided into 4 lists of 18, and did not differ significantly with respect to number of syllables (M = 1.93,SD = 0.83) or words (M = 1.26,SD = 0.44) per cue.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Cognitive tasks that involve episodic memory should be affected by an ESI when given prior to task completion, whereas cognitive tasks that do not involve episodic memory should not be affected by an ESI prior to task completion.

“The logic of this approach is straightforward: cognitive tasks that involve episodic memory should be affected by an ESI when given prior to task completion, whereas cognitive tasks that do not involve episodic memory should not be affected by an ESI prior to task completion.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The ESI was comprised of a set of questions derived from the Cognitive Interview, a forensic protocol that has been found to reliably boost accurate details of eyewitness memory.

“The ESI was comprised of a set of questions derived from the Cognitive Interview (CI), a forensic protocol that has been found to reliably boost accurate details of eyewitness memory (Fisher and Geiselman 1992).”

• cites Fisher and Geiselman 1992Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

None of the cues were related to the content of the videos.

“None of the cues were related to the content of the videos.”

May combine two claims.

Participants generated their first response early in the 20 s trial window (e.g., 3-4 s) and their last response late in the trial window (e.g., 15-16 s), and first and last reaction times did not vary significantly as a function of induction (Ps > 0.21).

“Participants also generated their first response early in the 20 s trial window (e.g., 3-4 s) and their last response late in the trial window (e.g., 15-16 s); first and last reaction times did not vary significantly as a function of induction (Ps > 0.21).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

None of the participants had completed previous ESI experiments.

“None of the participants had completed previous ESI experiments.”

May combine two claims.

The finding of greater left anterior hippocampal activity during divergent thinking following ESI replicates and extends previous fMRI results on ESI and future event simulation to divergent thinking, and lends support to current conceptual frameworks focused on the role of the hippocampus in flexible cognition.

“This finding replicates and extends our previous fMRI results on ESI and future event simulation (Madore et al. 2016b) to divergent thinking, and lends support to current conceptual frameworks and data patterns focused on the role of the hippocampus in flexible cognition”

• cites Madore et al. 2016bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Participants gave written informed consent and were treated in a manner approved by Harvard University's ethics committee.

“Participants gave written informed consent and were treated in a manner approved by Harvard University's ethics committee.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

We did not examine BOLD activity associated with each particular button press within each trial because differences emerged for this variable on the alternate uses task as a function of induction, which could skew results in terms of the number of trials modeled per induction.

“It should be noted that we did not examine BOLD activity associated with each particular button press within each trial because differences emerged for this variable on the alternate uses task as a function of induction, which could skew results in terms of the number of trials modeled per induction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Five additional participants completed the study but were excluded from analyses due to excessive movement in the scanner (n = 4) or task noncompliance (n = 1).

“Five additional participants completed the study but were excluded from analyses due to excessive movement in the scanner (n = 4) or task noncompliance (n = 1).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

All reported fMRI results are derived from statistical parameters that survive a significance threshold of P < 0.05 corrected for multiple voxel-wise comparisons or multiple component comparisons.

“All reported results are derived from statistical parameters that survive a significance threshold of P < 0.05 corrected for multiple voxel-wise comparisons or multiple component comparisons, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

Participants rated themselves as engaged on task for at least 17 out of 18 trials per task per induction during scanning, with no significant differences (Ps > 0.12).

“Participants rated themselves as engaged on task for at least 17 out of 18 trials per task per induction during scanning (Ps > 0.12).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The results are collapsed across induction order because it did not affect behavioral or neural outcomes significantly.

“The results are collapsed across the variable of induction order (i.e., specificity followed by control versus control followed by specificity) because it did not affect behavioral or neural outcomes significantly.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Two independent raters blind to induction and hypothesis later scored postscan responses.

“we had 2 independent raters blind to induction and hypothesis later score postscan responses to further characterize performance.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The core network component excluded the hippocampus, which may have resulted from this region exhibiting a different temporal profile of task-related activation from other core network regions.

“It should be noted that the core network component excluded the hippocampus, which may have resulted from this region exhibiting a different temporal profile of task-related activation from other core network regions (for related evidence, see Roberts et al. 2017).”

• cites Roberts et al. 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The 2 raters obtained high inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's αs > 0.91 on all measures) on practice scoring of 20 responses from an independent dataset.

“Before scoring of the experimental trials commenced, the 2 raters individually completed practice scoring on 20 responses from an independent dataset and obtained high inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's αs > 0.91 on all measures).”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Differences in task difficulty do not explain the induction-related behavioral and neural findings, as covarying out task difficulty ratings yielded the same results.

“We ruled out differences in task difficulty as an alternative explanation for induction-related effects.”

May combine two claims.

Functional coupling extended into a rest period between a hippocampal seed and lateral prefrontal cortex, which suggests short-term functional reorganization of core and control networks following ESI.

“We also found evidence that functional coupling extended into a rest period (with a hippocampal seed on the one hand and a cluster of voxels in lateral prefrontal cortex on the other), which suggests that there is short-term, functional reorganization of core and control networks following ESI.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Because ESI is presented as a verbal interview between research assistant and participant, it was not possible to scan participants during the induction phase of the experiment.

“because ESI is currently presented as a verbal interview between research assistant and participant, it was not possible to scan participants during the induction phase of the experiment (due to reduced sound quality and increased head motion impacting data collection and analyses).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

It is unclear whether the ESI itself or the after effects of the ESI manipulation during the main tasks drives the later resting-state findings, so the resting-state results should be interpreted cautiously.

“we are cautious in interpreting too heavily the resting-state results because it is unclear whether it is the ESI itself or the after effects of the ESI manipulation during the main tasks that drives the later resting-state findings.”

May combine two claims.

The data suggest that participants performed the main tasks in the scanner adequately and reported relevant information in the postscan interview about their task performance in the scanner.

“These aspects of the data suggest that participants performed the main tasks in the scanner adequately and reported relevant information in the postscan interview about their task performance in the scanner.”