Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481545›Full record

SynthesisBiological psychology2016

Delayed match-to-sample in working memory: A BrainMap meta-analysis.

Thomas A Daniel, Jeffrey S Katz, Jennifer L Robinson

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biological psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas A DanielDepartment of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: tdaniel@westfield.ma.edu.
Jeffrey S KatzDepartment of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; AU MRI Research Center, Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; Alabama Advanced Imaging Consortium, Auburn University and University of Alabama Birmingham, AL, USA.
Jennifer L RobinsonDepartment of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; AU MRI Research Center, Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA; Alabama Advanced Imaging Consortium, Auburn University and University of Alabama Birmingham, AL, USA.
Auburn University · USAdvanced Imaging Research (United States) · US

Funding

Meta-anaylsis in human brain mappingR01MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2006 to 2024
$10.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM), or the ability to temporarily store and manipulate information, is one of the most widely studied constructs in cognitive psychology. Since its inception, it has become one of the leading explanations for how humans are able to operate on a cognitive level. The current study probed the neural networks underlying one of the most commonly used tasks, delayed match-to-sample (DMTS), to study WM. An activation likelihood estimation (ALE) analysis of 42 functional neuroimaging studies (626 participants) was conducted to demonstrate neural network engagement during DMTS. Results demonstrated strong convergence in brain regions commonly associated with the working memory construct (i.e., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, fusiform gyrus, and posterior parietal cortex). However, neural activation in two regions frequently attributed to WM were absent from this meta-analysis: the anterior cingulate and the rostral prefrontal cortex, suggesting that these regions may be more sensitive to task or stimuli characteristics. In a post-hoc analysis, we deconstructed the DMTS meta-analysis to examine nonverbal versus verbal stimuli, and found notable neurofunctional differences such that DMTS using nonverbal stimuli consistently engaged the right middle frontal gyrus (BA 6/46) and precuneus (BA 7) more so than verbal stimuli based DMTS. These results provide a foundation for future models of functional connectivity that may elucidate subtle differences in working memory attributable to pathological processes.

Indexed as

Brain MappingMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansLikelihood FunctionsMemory, Short-TermNerve NetParietal LobePrefrontal CortexPsychological TestsTemporal LobeActivation likelihood estimationALEfMRIFunctional neuroimagingNeural networks

Identifiers

PMID27481545
PMCPMC5323073
OpenAlexW2501774790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.