Cited by 27Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Suppression weakens unwanted memories via a sustained reduction of neural reactivation

Open access
Meyer, Ann-Kristin, Benoit, Roland G·2022·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Aversive events sometimes turn into intrusive memories. However, prior evidence indicates that such memories can be controlled via a mechanism of retrieval suppression. Here, we test the hypothesis that suppression exerts a sustained influence on memories by deteriorating their neural representations. This deterioration, in turn, would hinder their subsequent reactivation and thus impoverish the vividness with which they can be recalled. In an fMRI study, participants repeatedly suppressed memories of aversive scenes. As predicted, this process rendered the memories less vivid. Using a pattern classifier, we observed that suppression diminished the neural reactivation of scene information both globally across the brain and locally in the parahippocampal cortices. Moreover, the decline in vividness was associated with reduced reinstatement of unique memory representations in right parahippocampal cortex. These results support the hypothesis that suppression weakens memories by causing a sustained reduction in the potential to reactivate their neural representations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.71309

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The recall bias could be particularly pronounced in victims whose victimization experiences occurred several years ago.

    “However, also considering potential memory deficits after adverse life events (Meyer & Benoit, 2022; Zoellner et al., 2019), the recall bias (Kihlstrom et al., 2000) could be particularly pronounced in victims whose victimization experiences occurred several years ago.”

    From Why They Speak Up (or Don’t): Reasons For and Against Cybergrooming Disclosure Among Adolescent Victims (2025) · cites this paper as Meyer & Benoit, 2022

    The Results ('Suppression renders memories less vivid'; page unavailable) report that suppressing memories of aversive scenes reduced their subsequent recall vividness, supporting the cited point that adverse material can be recalled less well. The study tested experimentally suppressed scene memories, not memory deficits following victims’ own adverse life events. The suggestion about victimization several years earlier is the citing authors’ inference, not a finding attributed specifically to Meyer and Benoit. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meyer, A.-K., & Benoit, R. G.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Meyer, Ann-Kristin
Venue
eLife
Published
2022-03-30
Volume
11
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225698209
Cited by
27
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Max Planck Society
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 suppression, intrusive memories, aversive memory, memory vividness, neural reactivation, reinstatement, parahippocampal cortex, memory representation
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mental Recall

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.

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