What do open-access studies report about readers reinterpreting earlier material after a twist (re-experiencing, hindsight), and which statements are measured versus proposed?

Partially verified: the curator re-read none of the cited sources; S5, S6 rest on the producer's pinned reading. The one open-access measurement found is an fMRI study (PNAS 2026, 36 adults, one 18-minute audio story with a mid-story twist heard twice): participants rated a character differently on the second listen mostly in the pre-twist part, and passages they said they reevaluated showed larger neural pattern shifts. It is a mid-story twist, a single stimulus, and it measured reinterpretation, not liking of the ending. A 2026 theory paper proposes that a reversal pleases when earlier cues can be retrieved and reinterpreted; its support is three film close readings, and its three hypotheses are untested. Two further sources (Komeda et al., rereading twist stories; an open-access rereading article in Discourse Processes) could not be read. Curator qualifications: Partially verified: the curator re-read none of the cited sources; S5, S6 rest on the producer's pinned reading. Curator GET 2026-10-23 of the sources not re-read (mechanical source evidence, not semantic verification): S5: HTTP 200, bytes equal to the producer pin; S6: HTTP 200, bytes equal to the producer pin. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12994196/fullTextXML",
      "note": "paper"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://pinnaclepubs.com/index.php/IJLAS/article/download/856/817",
      "note": "paper"
    }
  ]
}