ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2015
Using electrophysiology to demonstrate that cueing affects long-term memory storage over the short term.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrieval from long-term memory does not bypass working memory.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
As researchers who study working memory, we often assume that participants keep a representation of an object in working memory when we present a cue that indicates that the object will be tested in a couple of seconds. This intuitively accounts for how well people can remember a cued object, relative to their memory for that same object presented without a cue. However, it is possible that this superior memory does not purely reflect storage of the cued object in working memory. We tested the hypothesis that cues presented during a stream of objects, followed by a short retention interval and immediate memory test, can change how information is handled by long-term memory. We tested this hypothesis by using a family of frontal event-related potentials believed to reflect long-term memory storage. We found that these frontal indices of long-term memory were sensitive to the task relevance of objects signaled by auditory cues, even when the objects repeated frequently, such that proactive interference was high. Our findings indicate the problematic nature of assuming process purity in the study of working memory, and demonstrate that frequent stimulus repetitions fail to isolate the role of working memory mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.